Skip to content

Broker-Dealer Regulation & Litigation Insights

  • About Us
  • Contributors
  • Resources
  • Presentations
  • Visit the Faegre Drinker website

Robinhood vs. Massachusetts’ Secretary of the Commonwealth: A Battle for the Ages over Massachusetts’ New Strict Fiduciary Duty Rule

Massachusetts’ Secretary of the Commonwealth, William Galvin, is taking on Robinhood for violating Massachusetts’ new fiduciary duty rule for broker-dealers. In December 2020, Galvin filed a 24-page regulatory complaint, seeking to ban the popular trading app for violating the State’s strict fiduciary duty rule that requires broker-dealers to act in the best interest of their clients. Galvin raised three different violations against Robinhood that allegedly fell short of the new strict fiduciary standard. This new rule, passed in February 2020, was created in response to the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Regulation Best Interest (Reg BI), which Massachusetts believed did not go far enough. Reg BI bars brokers from putting their own financial interest above those of their clients, but fails to define what it means to act “in the customers’ best interest” or mandate that brokers recommend a single best product. While Reg BI requires the disclosure and mitigation of conflicts of interest, Massachusetts felt this requirement was also lacking. Galvin stated that Reg BI is “basically a souped-up version of the suitability standard,” and felt a new State rule was necessary to protect the growing crowd of young investors in the State. During this past year, due to COVID-19 and other meme-based investment activities on the application, Robinhood accumulated over 3 million new users in the first four months of 2020. Galvin’s concerns revolve around the 500,000 customers in Massachusetts, with accounts totaling over $1.6 billion.

The Allegations and Robinhood’s Response

Galvin claims that Robinhood fell short of acting in its clients’ best interest. The first allegation claims Robinhood’s technological outages compromised its clients and their assets through Robinhood’s failure to supervise and respond adequately to the disruptions. The second allegation claims Robinhood violated its own rules regarding options trading by approving customers to engage in the practice without having the necessary qualifications. Lastly, the third allegation claims Robinhood uses “gamification” to encourage unnecessary trading risks. Under this gamification allegation, Galvin asserts Robinhood’s promise of free stocks, push notifications and “signature digital confetti,” encourages “continuous and repeated engagement with its application.”

Robinhood responded to these allegations in the regulatory proceeding by filing suit in Massachusetts state court against the State of Massachusetts on April 15, 2021, to remove the matter from the administrative process. Robinhood’s representatives report that the company continues to work to ensure the system’s scale and its availability to its customer base. The company also disclaims the allegations that it targets an unsophisticated customer base, but rather believes its application provides customers with the proper tools to educate themselves and invest on their own.

Robinhood’s suit against the State claims the new fiduciary rule is invalid under state and federal law. First, Robinhood argues that federal law preempts this new rule, given the introduction of Reg BI. Secondly, under State law, Robinhood asserts that Massachusetts common law does not define brokerage firms as general-purpose fiduciaries to their customers and the Secretary’s actions to usurp the authority of the Judicial Branch is prohibited. Also under State law, Robinhood asserts that the new fiduciary rule does not apply to them as a “self-directed” brokerage firm, given they do not make investment recommendations or provide investment advice.

Upcoming Issues for the Court to Address

In this suit, the State court is going to need to resolve three different issues: preemption, enforcement power, and proper application. The court will need to determine if the SEC’s Reg BI preempted Massachusetts’ new rule. If the court decides the state law is not preempted, the court will then need to determine if the securities division has the authority to enforce this rule, given the states’ common law. Lastly, the court will need to determine if the rule encompasses Robinhood in its authority as a self-directed brokerage firm. This last question will revolve around the definition of “recommendation,” as Robinhood asserts in its complaint, “broker-dealers, as a matter of law, do not owe their customers general fiduciary duties, even when providing customers with investment advice and recommendations. Instead, under Massachusetts law, broker-dealers owe their customers fiduciary duties only when they act with discretion and make the investment decisions for their customers. Robinhood does neither of those things.” Robinhood currently provides a list of securities in various categories for customers to choose from in its application. There is a lot of debate regarding these lists and if they should qualify as providing investment advice. Barbra Roper, the Director of Investor Protection at the Consumer Federation of America, stated “We can’t tolerate a situation in which apps and digital platforms are able to do indirectly, through psychological nudges, what they would be prohibited from doing directly in the form of a recommendation.”

While this matter unfolds, Robinhood continues to deal with the oversight of its application with the uptrend in meme investing and an influx of customers who have been drawn to investing during a year of COVID-19 lockdown.

The combination of issues in this proceeding involving Reg BI preemption, what may constitute a recommendation, and the interplay of advancing technologies make the battle between Robinhood and Massachusetts one to watch closely over the months and years to come.

Subscribe and Receive Alerts to New Articles

SUBSCRIBE
May 25, 2021
Written by: Sandra D. Grannum and Heaven L. Chandler
Category: Fiduciary Duty, Regulation Best Interest
Tags: Covid-19, Galvin, Gamification, Massachusetts Fiduciary Duty Rule, Robinhood

Post navigation

Previous Previous post: New York Insurance Regulation 187 Found Unconstitutional: Now What? A Faegre Drinker Podcast
Next Next post: State Fiduciary and Best Interest Developments: Texas, Virginia and Montana

Subscribe to Alerts

Recent Posts

  • Having a Senior Moment
  • Broker-Dealer Regulation & Litigation Digest – Winter 2022
  • The Convergence Continues: SEC Staff Bulletin on Standards of Conduct for B-Ds and RIAs
  • Recent State Fiduciary and Best Interest Developments: New Mexico Becomes the 20th State to Adopt an NAIC Best Interest Model
  • Exam Time: FINRA Releases its 2022 Report on its Examination and Risk Monitoring Program

Categories

  • 12b-1 Fees
  • 3270
  • 3280
  • 3290
  • Anti-Money Laundering
  • Arbitration
  • BD
  • Best Execution
  • Best Interest Contract Exemption
  • Best Interest Standard of Care
  • Business Continuity Planning
  • Churning
  • Class Certification
  • Compensation Issues
  • Compliance
  • Concurrent jurisdiction
  • Conflicts of Interest
  • Congress
  • Covered class actions
  • Covered securities
  • Credit
  • Cryptocurrencies
  • Customer Due Diligence Rule
  • Customer Protection
  • Cybersecurity
  • Dark Pools
  • Data Integrity
  • DOL Fiduciary Rule
  • Elder Abuse
  • Enforcement
  • Event Study
  • Examination
  • Exchange-Traded Funds (“ETF”)
  • exemptions
  • Fair Pricing
  • Fees
  • Fiduciary
  • Fiduciary Duty
  • Financial Services
  • FinCEN
  • FINRA
  • FINRA 2018 Annual Regulatory and Examination Priorities Letter
  • FINRA 360
  • FINRA Code of Arbitration Procedure 12204
  • FINRA Code of Arbitration Procedure 13204
  • FINRA Notice 13-45
  • FINRA Regulatory Notice 16-25
  • FINRA Rule 12200
  • FINRA Rule 13200
  • FINRA Rule 2111
  • FINRA Rule 2165
  • FINRA Rule 2232
  • FINRA Rule 3310(c)
  • FINRA Rule 4210
  • FINRA Rule 4512
  • FINRA Summary Report
  • Fixed Income
  • Fraud
  • Goldman v. City of Reno, 747 F.3d 733(2014)
  • Goldman v. Golden Empire Schools Financing, 767 F.3d 210(2014)
  • IA
  • Impartial Conduct Standards
  • In the Matter of Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated, Respondent (AWC 2009020188101/January 25, 2012)
  • Initial Coin Offerings
  • Investment Recommendation
  • Investor
  • IRA
  • Liquidity
  • Manipulation
  • Margin
  • Market Access
  • Market Access Controls
  • Mortgage
  • Mutual Funds
  • New FINRA Rule
  • OCIE
  • Office of the Solicitor General
  • Options
  • Outside Activities
  • Outside Business Activities (“OBA”)
  • Policies and Procedures
  • Price Impact
  • Private Securities Transactions (“PST”)
  • Private Securities Transactions of an Associated Person”
  • Prohibited Transactions
  • Prudence
  • Quantitative Suitability
  • Reading Health v. JP Morgan, No. 16-4234 (3d Cir. Aug. 7, 2018)
  • Reasonable Fees
  • Recommendation
  • Regulation Best Interest
  • Regulation SHO
  • Regulatory Notice 18-13
  • Retirement Account
  • Risk
  • Rollovers
  • SEC
  • SEC 2018 National Exam Program Examination Priorities
  • SEC Reg BI
  • SEC RIA Interpretation
  • Securities Act of 1933
  • Securities Class Action
  • Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 (SLUSA)
  • Senior Safe Act
  • Seniors
  • Service Providers
  • Short Sales
  • Suitability
  • supervision
  • Supreme Court
  • Surveillance
  • Technology Governance
  • UBS v. Carilion Clinic, 706 F.3d 319(2013)
  • Uncategorized
  • Unit Investment Trusts (“UIT”)
  • Verification of Assets and Liabilities

archives

  • 2022
    • May 2022
    • April 2022
    • March 2022
    • February 2022
    • January 2022
  • 2021
    • December 2021
    • November 2021
    • October 2021
    • August 2021
    • July 2021
    • May 2021
    • April 2021
    • March 2021
    • February 2021
    • January 2021
  • 2020
    • December 2020
    • November 2020
    • October 2020
    • September 2020
    • August 2020
    • July 2020
    • June 2020
    • May 2020
    • April 2020
    • March 2020
    • February 2020
    • January 2020
  • 2019
    • December 2019
    • November 2019
    • October 2019
    • September 2019
    • August 2019
    • July 2019
    • June 2019
    • May 2019
    • April 2019
    • March 2019
    • February 2019
    • January 2019
  • 2018
    • December 2018
    • October 2018
    • September 2018
    • August 2018
    • July 2018
    • June 2018
    • May 2018
    • April 2018
    • March 2018
    • February 2018
    • January 2018
  • 2017
    • December 2017
    • November 2017
    • October 2017
  • About Us
  • Contributors
  • Resources
  • Presentations
  • Visit the Faegre Drinker website

© 2022 Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP. All Rights Reserved. Lawyer Advertising.
Privacy Policy

We use cookies to improve your experience with our website. By browsing our site, you are agreeing to the use of cookies. For more information about how we use cookies, please review our privacy policy and cookie policy. OK
Privacy & Cookies Policy

Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may affect your browsing experience.
Necessary
Always Enabled
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Non-necessary
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.
SAVE & ACCEPT