COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES | NOTE 13: COMMITMENTS & CONTINGENCIES We are subject to contingencies arising in the ordinary course of our business, including contingencies related to legal, regulatory, non-income tax and other matters. We record an accrual for loss contingencies at management’s best estimate when we determine that it is probable that a loss has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. If the reasonable estimate is a range and no amount within that range is considered a better estimate than any other amount, an accrual is recorded based on the bottom amount of the range. If a loss is not probable, or a probable loss cannot be reasonably estimated, no accrual is recorded. Amounts accrued for contingencies in the aggregate were $85 million as of December 31, 2022 and $88 million as of March 31, 2023. In our opinion, an adequate accrual had been made as of each such date to provide for the probable losses of which we are aware and for which we can reasonably estimate an amount. Legal and Regulatory Matters The securities industry is highly regulated and many aspects of our business involve substantial risk of liability. In past years, there has been an increase in litigation and regulatory investigations involving the brokerage and cryptocurrency industries. Litigation has included and may in the future include class action suits that generally seek substantial and, in some cases, punitive damages. Federal and state regulators, exchanges, or other SROs investigate issues related to regulatory compliance that may result in enforcement action. We are also subject to periodic regulatory audits and inspections that have in the past and could in the future lead to enforcement investigations or actions. We have been named as a defendant in lawsuits and from time to time we have been threatened with, or named as a defendant in arbitrations and administrative proceedings. The outcomes of these matters are inherently uncertain and some may result in adverse judgments or awards, including penalties, injunctions, or other relief, and we may also determine to settle a matter because of the uncertainty and risks of litigation. With respect to matters discussed below, we believe, based on current knowledge, that any losses (in excess of amounts accrued, if applicable) as of March 31, 2023 that are reasonably possible and can be reasonably estimated will not, in the aggregate, have a material adverse effect on our business, financial position, operating results, or cash flows. However, for many of the matters disclosed below, particularly those in early stages, we cannot reasonably estimate the reasonably possible loss (or range of loss), if any. In addition, the ultimate outcome of legal proceedings involves judgments and inherent uncertainties and cannot be predicted with certainty. Any judgment entered against us, or any adverse settlement, could materially and adversely impact our business, financial condition, operating results, and cash flows. We might also incur substantial legal fees, which are expensed as incurred, in defending against legal and regulatory claims. Described below are certain pending matters in which there is at least a reasonable possibility that a material loss could be incurred. We intend to continue to defend these matters vigorously. Best Execution, Payment for Order Flow, and Sources of Revenue Civil Litigation Beginning in December 2020, multiple putative securities fraud class action lawsuits were filed against RHM, RHF, and RHS. Five cases were consolidated in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. An amended consolidated complaint was filed in May 2021, alleging violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and various state law causes of action based on claims that we violated the duty of best execution and misled putative class members by publishing misleading statements and omissions in customer communications relating to the execution of trades and revenue sources (including PFOF). Plaintiffs seek damages, restitution, disgorgement, and other relief. In February 2022, the court granted Robinhood’s motion to dismiss the amended consolidated complaint without prejudice. In March 2022, plaintiffs filed a second consolidated amended complaint, alleging only violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, which Robinhood moved to dismiss. In October 2022, the court granted Robinhood’s motion in part and denied it in part. In November 2022, Robinhood filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, which the court denied in January 2023. March 2020 Outages A consolidated putative class action lawsuit relating to the service outages on our stock trading platform on March 2-3, 2020 and March 9, 2020 (“March 2020 Outages”) is pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The lawsuit generally alleges that putative class members were unable to execute trades during the March 2020 Outages because our platform was inadequately designed to handle customer demand and we failed to implement appropriate backup systems. The lawsuit includes, among other things, claims for breach of contract, negligence, gross negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment and violations of certain California consumer protection statutes. The lawsuit generally seeks damages, restitution, and/or disgorgement, as well as declaratory and injunctive relief. In May 2022, the parties notified the court that they had reached an agreement in principle resolving this action. The settlement agreement has been preliminarily approved by the court. In addition, in September 2021, approximately 400 jointly-represented customers initiated an arbitration of individual claims against us arising out of the March 2020 Outages and other alleged system outages. The parties have reached an agreement to resolve this matter. State Regulatory Matters Certain state regulatory authorities have conducted investigations regarding RHF’s options trading and related customer communications and displays, options and margin trading approval process, the March 2020 Outages, and customer support prior to June 2020. RHF reached settlements with several state regulators including the Alabama Securities Commission, the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation, the Colorado Division of Securities, the Delaware Department of Justice - Investor Protection Unit, the New Jersey Bureau of Securities, the South Dakota Division of Insurance, and the Texas State Securities Board, under which we have agreed to pay a monetary penalty of $200,000 per state. RHF anticipates additional potential state settlements as part of a multi-state settlement related to these issues totaling up to approximately $10 million. The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) previously conducted an investigation and reached a settlement with RHF regarding many of these issues. Brokerage Enforcement Matters FINRA Enforcement staff are conducting investigations related to, among other things, RHS’s reporting of fractional share trades, as applicable, to a Trade Reporting Facility, the Over-the-Counter Reporting Facility, the Order Audit Trail System, and the Consolidated Audit Trail; RHS’s reporting of accounts holding significant options positions to the Large Option Position Report system; processing of certain requests for transfers of assets from Robinhood through the Automated Customer Account Transfer System; responses to Electronic Blue Sheets requests from FINRA; the delays in notification from third parties and process failures within our brokerage systems and operations in connection with the handling of a 1-for-25 reverse stock split transaction of Cosmo Health, Inc, in December 2022 (the “Q4 2022 Processing Error”); RHF’s compliance with FINRA registration requirements for member personnel; marketing involving social media influencers and affiliates; collaring the prices of certain trade orders; and RHS’ compliance with best execution obligations. We are cooperating with these investigations. RHS has received requests from the SEC Division of Enforcement regarding its compliance with Regulation SHO’s trade reporting and other requirements in connection with securities lending, fractional share trading, and the Q4 2022 Processing Error, and previously received similar requests from FINRA examinations staff. RHS and RHF have also received requests from the SEC Division of Enforcement and FINRA Enforcement staff related to the Firms’ compliance with recordkeeping requirements, including requests regarding off-channel communications. We are cooperating with these investigations. Robinhood Crypto Matters RHC has received subpoenas from the California Attorney General’s Office seeking information about, among other things, RHC’s trading platform, business and operations, custody of customer assets, customer disclosures, and coin listings. RHC is cooperating with this investigation. Account Takeovers, Anti-Money Laundering, and Cybersecurity Matters FINRA Enforcement and the SEC Division of Enforcement are investigating account takeovers (i.e., circumstances under which an unauthorized actor successfully logs into a customer account), as well as anti-money laundering compliance and cybersecurity issues. The SEC’s Division of Enforcement is also investigating issues related to compliance with the Electronic Funds Transfer Act. We are cooperating with these investigations. In January 2021, Siddharth Mehta filed a putative class action in California state court against RHF and RHS, purportedly on behalf of approximately 2,000 Robinhood customers whose accounts were allegedly accessed by unauthorized users. RHF and RHS removed this action to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Plaintiff generally alleges that RHF and RHS breached commitments made and duties owed to customers to safeguard customer data and assets and seeks monetary damages and injunctive relief. In April 2022, the parties reached a settlement in principle to resolve this matter. The settlement agreement has been preliminarily approved by the court. Massachusetts Securities Division Matter In December 2020, the Enforcement Section of the Massachusetts Securities Division (“MSD”) filed an administrative complaint against RHF, which stems from an investigation initiated by the MSD in July 2020. The complaint alleged three counts of Massachusetts securities law violations regarding alleged unethical and dishonest conduct or practices, failure to supervise, and failure to act in accordance with the Massachusetts fiduciary duty standard, which became effective on March 6, 2020 and had an effective enforcement date beginning September 1, 2020. Among other things, the MSD alleged that our product features and marketing strategies, outages, and options trading approval process constitute violations of Massachusetts securities laws. MSD subsequently filed an amended complaint that seeks, among other things, injunctive relief (a permanent cease and desist order), censure, restitution, disgorgement, appointment of an independent consultant, an administrative fine, and revocation of RHF's license to operate in Massachusetts. If RHF were to lose its license to operate in Massachusetts, we would not be able to acquire any new customers in Massachusetts, and we expect that our current customers in Massachusetts would be unable to continue utilizing any of the services or products offered on our platform (other than closing their positions) and that we may be forced to transfer such customers’ accounts to other broker-dealers. Additionally, revocation of RHF’s Massachusetts license could trigger similar disqualification or proceedings to restrict or condition RHF’s registration by other state regulators. A revocation of RHF’s license to operate in Massachusetts would result in RHF and RHS being subject to statutory disqualification by FINRA and the SEC, which would then result in RHF needing to obtain relief from FINRA subject to SEC review in order to remain a FINRA member and RHS possibly needing relief from FINRA or other SROs. In April 2021, RHF filed a complaint and motion for preliminary injunction and declaratory relief in Massachusetts state court seeking to enjoin the MSD administrative proceeding and challenging the legality of the Massachusetts fiduciary duty standard. In September 2021, the parties filed cross-motions for partial judgment on the pleadings. In March 2022, the court ruled in favor of RHF, declaring that the Massachusetts fiduciary duty regulation was unlawful. The MSD is appealing the ruling and it is scheduled to be heard by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in May 2023. A hearing on the two remaining counts alleged by the MSD in its amended administrative complaint has been continued pending resolution of the appeal. Text Message Litigation In August 2021, Cooper Moore filed a putative class action against RHF alleging that RHF initiated or assisted in the transmission of commercial electronic text messages to Washington State residents without their consent in violation of Washington state law. The complaint seeks statutory and treble damages, injunctive relief, and attorneys’ fees and costs. The case is currently pending in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. RHF filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. In February 2022, Moore and Andrew Gillette filed an amended complaint, which RHF again moved to dismiss. In August 2022, the court denied RHF’s motion to dismiss. Early 2021 Trading Restrictions Matters Beginning on January 28, 2021, due to increased deposit requirements imposed on RHS by the NSCC in response to unprecedented market volatility, particularly in certain securities, RHS temporarily restricted or limited its customers’ purchase of certain securities, including GameStop Corp. and AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc., on our platform (the “Early 2021 Trading Restrictions”). A number of individual and putative class actions related to the Early 2021 Trading Restrictions were filed against RHM, RHF, and RHS, among others, in various federal and state courts. In April 2021, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation entered an order centralizing the federal cases identified in a motion to transfer and coordinate or consolidate the actions filed in connection with the Early 2021 Trading Restrictions in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The court subsequently divided plaintiffs’ claims against Robinhood into three tranches: federal antitrust claims, federal securities law claims, and state law claims. In July 2021, plaintiffs filed consolidated complaints seeking monetary damages in connection with the federal antitrust and state law tranches. The federal antitrust complaint asserted one violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act; the state law complaint asserted negligence and breach of fiduciary duty claims. In August 2021, we moved to dismiss both of these complaints. In September 2021, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint asserting state law claims of negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, tortious interference with contract and business relationship, civil conspiracy, and breaches of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing and implied duty of care. In January 2022, the court dismissed the state law complaint with prejudice. Plaintiffs have appealed the court’s order to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. In November 2021, the court dismissed the federal antitrust complaint without prejudice. In January 2022, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in connection with the federal antitrust tranche and Robinhood moved to dismiss the amended complaint. In May 2022, the court dismissed the federal antitrust complaint with prejudice. Plaintiffs have appealed the court’s order to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. In November 2021, plaintiffs for the federal securities tranche filed a complaint alleging violations of Sections 9(a) and 10(b) of the Exchange Act. In January 2022, we moved to dismiss the federal securities law complaint. In August 2022, the court granted in part and denied in part Robinhood’s motion to dismiss. RHM, RHF, RHS, and our Co-Founder and CEO, Vladimir Tenev, among others, have received requests for information, and in some cases, subpoenas and requests for testimony, related to investigations and examinations of the Early 2021 Trading Restrictions from the United States Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of California (“USAO”), the U.S. Department of Justice ("DOJ”), Antitrust Division, the SEC’s Division of Enforcement, FINRA, the New York Attorney General’s Office, other state attorneys general offices, and a number of state securities regulators. Also, a related search warrant was executed by the USAO to obtain Mr. Tenev's cell phone. There have been several inquiries based on specific customer complaints. We have also received requests from the SEC Division of Enforcement and FINRA related to employee trading in certain securities that were subject to the Early 2021 Trading Restrictions, including GameStop Corp. and AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc., during the week of January 25, 2021. These matters include requests related to whether any employee trading in these securities may have occurred after the decision to impose the Early 2021 Trading Restrictions and before the public announcement of the Early 2021 Trading Restrictions on January 28, 2021. We are cooperating with these investigations. FINRA Enforcement has also requested information about policies, procedures, and supervision related to employee trading generally. In January 2023, approximately 4,700 jointly represented customers filed a statement of claim with FINRA to initiate arbitration of individual claims against RHF and RHS arising out of the Early 2021 Trading Restrictions. IPO Litigation In December 2021, Philip Golubowski filed a putative class action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against RHM, the officers and directors who signed Robinhood’s initial public offering (“IPO”) offering documents, and Robinhood’s IPO underwriters. Plaintiff’s claims are based on alleged false or misleading statements in Robinhood’s IPO offering documents allegedly in violation of Sections 11 and 12(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”). Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages, rescission of shareholders’ share purchases, and an award for attorneys’ fees and costs. In February 2022, certain alleged Robinhood stockholders submitted applications seeking appointment by the court to be the lead plaintiff to represent the putative class in this matter, and in March 2022, the court appointed lead plaintiffs. In June 2022, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. In August 2022, Robinhood filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. In February 2023, the court granted Robinhood’s motion without prejudice. In March 2023, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint. In January 2022, Robert Zito filed a complaint derivatively on behalf of Robinhood against Robinhood’s directors at the time of its IPO in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. Plaintiff alleges breach of fiduciary duties, waste of corporate assets, unjust enrichment, and violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act. Plaintiff’s claims are based on allegations of false or misleading statements in Robinhood’s IPO offering documents, and plaintiff seeks an award of damages and restitution to the Company, injunctive relief, and an award for attorney’s fees and costs. In March 2022, the district court entered a stay of this litigation pending resolution of Robinhood’s motion to dismiss in the Golubowski securities action discussed above. In August 2022, a shareholder sent a letter to the RHM board of directors demanding, among other things, that the board of directors pursue causes of action on behalf of the Company related to allegations of misconduct in connection with the Early 2021 Trading Restrictions, Robinhood’s IPO offering documents, and the data security incident we experienced in November 2021 when an unauthorized third-party socially engineered a customer support employee by phone and obtained access to certain customer support systems (the “November 2021 Data Security Incident”). The Board has formed a Demand Review Committee that is reviewing the demand. |