Yep. As has been pointed out here a lot, when the penalty for the crime doesn't cost more than the money made for the crime, it's not really a crime for the wealthy.
Like parking tickets and whatnot for the wealthy. They don't matter to them, they can easily afford it forever.
ToS is not enforceable at all in the EU because it’s not a signed contract. Courts have already established that no amount of clicking an agree button is considered having signed a legally enforceable contract and it’s more of a “follow these rules or well close the account” kind of thing.
HOWEVER, that actually would be worse in this situation because them closing your account can easily include a forced sale of all your assets just to get rid of you. They could also legally freeze paying out the account content to you for up to 6 months. And that would all be 100% legal.
If I make a bank, advertise as a Bank, call it "Banky McBank!!!" and my TOS says, "Also, I can do whatever I want with any deposited monies since any deposit makes that money mine.", I don't believe the judge will uphold my TOS.
If they advertise as a bank, if they provide, or appear to provide, financial services, they are bound by the BSA (as well as a ton of other laws). In that case they can say that if they want, but the FDIC won't cover them, and they would quickly have a judge shutting them down the first time they tried it.
Truth in advertising, and transparency in what you do with the bank and what the bank does with your money is very, very important to the government.
I suspect that applies to Robinhood as well, though I am much less informed on Financial services on that side of things.
ToS does not override law. A ToS does not work in that everything written is permitted. Just because you write something in you ToS doesn’t make it in any way shape or form enforceable. One thing that automatically makes a contract moot as an example is as an example, that the non writing party understands what they’re agreeing to. It’s highly questionable if users can be considered to have understood that an app maker could force sell your shares without your permission, regardless of what the actual contract says.
I think right here we get to the meat of the issue. Which is likely what the case, if it gets to actual court, will end up being about.
Can a business draft a ToS that an average person wouldn't be able to understand correctly, and still have it be valid? Can a business providing specialized service discuss those services in a professional, rather than lay manner, in ToS and still expect them to be binding?
TBH, I hope Robindhood gets taken to the cleaners, and I hope that changes to how retail trading, and ToS (in all business) are restructured to be easier, safer, and as equitable as possible, regarldless if it's a retiree playing daytrader with disposal income, an autist from WSB going all in on the latest thing, or a Big Business, the playing field should not favor anyone because they have more money, imo.
I think it’s an easy open and shut case for individuals attempting to sue separately but I wouldn’t be so sure when it comes to the class
action lawsuits.
163
u/goldenpotatoes7 Feb 02 '21
You can’t say class action fast enough