I'm having a really hard time understanding this argument.
Unless I have an SLA with a provider outlining penalties, they don't owe me anything if they go down. How is this any different?
Unless I have an SLA with a provider outlining penalties, they don't owe me anything if they go down. How is this any different?
They may not have a legal/contractual obligation here, but that doesn't mean that treating their customers poorly is without consequence.
While RH's ToS does theoretically absolve them of technical issues, they are obligated to comply with 'best execution' securities mandates, no? Separately, it'd be extremely bad for business if they refused compensation.
The point is moot anyway, since they're offering "case-by-case" compensation.
Arbitration is forced, but Robinhood is on the hook for the fees for everyone who decides to arbitrate. Robinhood users might not get anything, but they can still cause pain.