Robinhood: A Case Study against Mandatory Consumer Dispute Arbitration



Arbitration has seen a meteoric rise in adoption in the United States of America (“The USA”). This can primarily be attributed to the arbitration friendly approach taken by the courts while interpreting statutes like the Federal Arbitration Act, 1925. A manifestation of this became the arbitration friendly approach taken towards arbitrability of disputes. Consumer dispute arbitrability is a glaring example of this. While Indian courts have taken a cautious approach towards consumer dispute arbitrability, ruling against the mandatory enforcement of pre-dispute arbitration agreements, courts in the USA have allowed mandatory enforcement of pre-dispute arbitration agreements. This case study of arbitral proceedings against Robinhood provides an analysis into the problematic aspects of mandatory consumer dispute arbitration.


Robinhood Market is a trading platform founded in the USA in the year 2013. The platform is primarily populated by day traders and retail investors consisting of primarily small portfolios of shares and options trading.

Retail investors identified that stocks like AMC and GameStop were being betted against by some Wall Street Hedge Funds. Against such backdrop, the community aimed at pumping the stock to sky-rocket its price till they achieve a short-squeeze through buying and holding shares. This caused a frenzy of online memes, sounding calls for retail investors to cause a short-squeeze, and earned these stocks the designation of “meme stocks”. Robinhood saw massive trading volumes since the retail investors were primarily driving this surge. This allegedly caused a major liquidity crisis for the platform creating an inability for Robinhood to meet collateral requirements for trades with National Securities Clearing Corporation (‘NSCC’), their clearing house. Due to this, Robinhood restricted trading on these “meme stocks”, causing substantial losses to customers.

The FINRA Way of Arbitration

Alleging damages due to missed-opportunity for making profits through trading said “meme stocks”, caused by Robinhood’s trading restrictions, a few users decided to raise their claims against the platform. Claims were raised through disputes governed by Section 38 of the Robinhood Consumer Agreement , which contains a pre-dispute arbitration clause whereby all disputes between parties to the agreement are to be mandatorily submitted for arbitration before Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (‘FINRA‘) Dispute Resolution in the State of California.

In January 2022, Jose Batista, a retail investor aggrieved by Robinhood’s actions, was awarded approximately $30,000 through the FINRA Dispute Resolution Mechanism. While this award is seen as a victory for the average retail investors, the mechanism through with the award was won creates a barrier that systematically isolates the approach to remedy for every consumer. Robinhood’s actions caused losses to multiple customers but due to arbitration being the mandate, the dispute cannot be resolved through any form of class action. This barrier is further solidified through the FINRA Code of Arbitration Procedure for Consumer Disputes, under which Rule 12204 posits that class action claims cannot be arbitrated under the code.

American Position on Consumer Dispute Arbitration

In the USA, arbitration is primarily governed at the federal level by the Federal Arbitration Act, 1925 (“The FAA”). Under this statute, once the mandatory arbitration clause is established, the court is required to refer the dispute to arbitration. This mechanism has been radically interpreted by the Supreme Court in Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v Mercury Construction Corp., where the court mandated a presumption in favour of arbitration when faced by an arbitration agreement. The doctrine of unconscionability does provide respite to parties in cases where the contract is clearly tarnished by unfair terms, and deficient or imbalanced bargaining powers between parties. But this test has been held in Zapatha v Dairy Mart Inc., to be applicable only on a case-to-case basis since the court posited that no all-purpose definition of unconscionability was possible. Further, the already limited grounds for escaping mandatory arbitration, restricted to prima facie unconscionability, fraud, misrepresentation, coercion, incompetence, and illegality of consideration being established through a bare reading of the agreement, were held to be subject to the doctrine of separability in the case of Prima Paint Corp. v. Flood & Conklin Mfg. Co.Application of the doctrine of separability meant that tainted sections of an arbitration agreement could be excluded, to allow a consistent and legally binding reading of the mandatory arbitration agreement, as long as the agreement was not entirely vitiated or defeated by such exclusions. Consequently, all claims of fraud and unconscionability are also to be adjudicated upon by the arbitral tribunal. 

Exceptionalism of arbitration forms the centrepiece of judicial jurisprudence on the subject in America. This overriding prioritization is manifested through the sections under the FAA, and with the case of Southland Corp. v. Keating, the Supreme Court ruled that the FAA pre-empts all state laws on the subject. Consequently, statutes like the Mont. Code Ann. § 27-5-114 (1993) providing safeguards to protect consumer interests, were struck down by the court while holding the law restrictive of arbitration. This exceptionalism is especially mind-boggling as the prohibitively expensive nature of arbitration and its deterrent effect on a consumer’s ability to bring disputes to court has been noted by courts. While exorbitant and incapacitating cost of arbitration was acknowledged as grounds for escaping arbitration, in Green Tree Financial Corp.-Ala. .v Randolph, the Supreme Court held that the burden to prove the prohibitive nature of costs was on the consumer who is seeking to escape mandatory arbitration. 

With respect to class action arbitration, in cases where the agreement is silent on the issue, the Supreme Court in Green Tree Financial Corp. v. Bazzle delegated the task of determining the issue to arbitral tribunals. Through subsequent decisions, this power was significantly curtailed. In the case of AT&T Mobility L.L.C. v. Concepcion, the Supreme Court held that the FAA pre-empts the use of unconscionability as means to allow class action consumer arbitration. The court further expressed displeasure against the concept of class action arbitration itself. 

Shortcomings of Consumer Dispute Arbitration Praxis from an Indian Perspective

The Robinhood case study can provide interesting insights from an Indian standpoint into the following possible ramifications of a liberal approach towards consumer dispute arbitrability:

A. Lack of Precedent Value:

Some arbitration agreements, like in the Robinhood case, may not require a reasoned order. In any case, even if a reasoned order made, this cannot be used as precedent in arbitral proceedings by other aggrieved consumers under the same issue. This is primarily due to mandatory confidentiality requirements and further lack of precedential value of awards. This may create deterrence for smaller claims being raised. Since facts are usually similar in consumer disputes arising out of unfair business practices, creation of precedence defeats the impediment created by class action waivers. This is due to the creation of certainty in outcome.

B. Prohibitive Cost:

The public policy argument against arbitration is premised on the comparative inferiority of arbitration in comparison to court adjudication. On this subject, in Vidya Drolia v Durga Trading Corp. The Supreme Court of India reiterated the observation made in Union of India v. Singh Builders Syndicate, stating that arbitration is expensive for parties in comparison to judicial adjudication.

This prohibitive cost creates a virtual barrier against consumer arbitration. Consumer disputes largely involve smaller claims, and recognition of this fact is evident from the regime of costs under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. This issue is magnified under consumer disputes where the claimant is usually an individual consumer who may not anticipate the grant of compensation to extents that would justify the risk of undertaking expensive arbitration proceedings. 

C. Unequal Bargaining Powers in Standard Form B2C Agreements:

Indian courts have observed limited acceptance of the doctrine of unconscionability as grounds for nullifying agreements under public policy. In these cases, the doctrine of unconscionability was based on unequal bargaining power. Similar inequality is observed in standard form B2C contracts, especially in a country like India. This inequality is exasperated by widespread digital illiteracy and a lack of legal awareness. Thus, there is scope for applying the principles of unconscionability in India under public policy for denying enforcement of mandatory arbitration agreements. 

D. Express and Implied Class Action Waivers:

Since arbitration attains legitimacy through party autonomy, any breach in privity of contract would compromise such autonomy and consequently, the whole process of arbitration. This structural barrier can be avoided if Business to consumer agreement (‘B2C‘) agreements allow for class action lawsuits, but businesses lack the incentive to allow such provisions. Due to the inequality in bargaining power regarding standard form B2C agreements, class action waivers become a part and parcel to protect business interests.

Class action becomes an essential tool for vulnerable parties to attain equality in bargaining power while seeking redressal of disputes. While in cases of victories, the overall compensation may not be as high as individual claims due to their division amongst a large class, the risk value being low rationalises the trade-off. This is because raising disputes is itself expensive, and class-actions allow division of costs. Such metrics are particularly relevant for arbitration, while is an uncertain and expensive process. 

The Way Forward

While class-actions may provide some respite to consumers from above-mentioned issues, business incentive to include class-action waivers in standard form contracts is very high. Further, lack of precedent on legality of these waivers in India makes this argument moot for now.

Interestingly, the pro tem solution to this issue is possible through elimination of the incentives that businesses have for undertaking consumer arbitration. In Manchester City Football Club Ltd v Football Association Premier League Ltd., an English court published a confidential arbitral award in the name of public policy. Such publication of awards impacting a larger class of people under the direction of courts may be useful for arbitral tribunals engaged in similar disputes against the same unfair business practice. While arbitral awards are not binding precedents, persuasive value can surely be derived. This is especially true since the award in such cases is granted higher legitimacy due to recognition of public interest by the court. Eliminating reduced publicity of claims is a disincentive for businesses to promote expensive arbitration with consumers since the biggest ace up their sleeves is rendered useless.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s