COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2021
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	NOTE 16: 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. Amounts accrued for contingencies in the aggregate were $57.6 million and $84.8 million as of December 31, 2020 and 2021. In our opinion, an adequate accrual had been made as of December 31, 2021 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 increasing incidence of litigation involving the brokerage industry, including class action suits that generally seek substantial damages. Damages may include, in some cases, punitive damages. Compliance and trading problems that are reported to federal and state regulators, exchanges, or other SROs by dissatisfied users are investigated by such regulatory bodies, and, if pursued by such regulatory bodies or such users, may rise to the level of arbitration or disciplinary action. We are also subject to periodic regulatory audits and inspections. Like other brokerage firms, 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 for which no accrual has been made or which have a potential loss in excess of amounts accrued, we believe, based on current knowledge, that any losses or ranges of losses (in excess of amounts accrued, if applicable) as of December 31, 2021 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, estimates, 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 Matters 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. March 2020 Outages A consolidated putative class action lawsuit relating to service outages on our stock trading platform on March 2-3, 2020 and March 9, 2020 (the “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. Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification, which we oppose, and our motion for summary judgment in favor of Robinhood are currently pending. 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. Robinhood is contesting the claims, and a hearing has been scheduled for September 2022. Options Trading and Related Customer Communications and Displays The SEC’s Examinations Division conducted an examination and identified deficiencies, to which RHF responded, with respect to account takeovers, identity theft in connection with new account opening, processes for approving or rejecting certain accounts for options trading, and customer support response times. Certain state regulatory authorities are conducting investigations regarding RHF’s options trading and related customer communications and displays and options trading approval process. RHF is cooperating with the regulators’ requests. FINRA also conducted an investigation and reached a settlement, described below, with RHF regarding the same options trading issues. FINRA Multi-Matter Settlement On June 30, 2021, RHF resolved with FINRA, on a no admit, no deny basis, certain investigations and examinations, including investigations into systems outages, RHF’s options product offering, and margin-related communications with customers, among others. The resolution did not address all the matters FINRA is investigating, including those relating to the Early 2021 Trading Restrictions (as defined below), account takeovers and anti-money laundering issues, RHS’s fractional share trade reporting, customer support procedures, or customer arbitration agreements. RHF and RHS have continued to cooperate with FINRA on these matters. The resolution involved the following components: (i) charges of violations of FINRA rules; (ii) a fine of $57.0 million; (iii) customer restitution of approximately $12.6 million; (iv) a censure; and (v) engagement of an independent consultant. In July 2021, we paid the $57.0 million penalty in cash. As of December 31, 2021, we had paid all of the customer restitution. RHC Anti-Money Laundering, Cybersecurity, and Other Issues In July 2020, the NYDFS issued a report of its examination of RHC citing a number of “matters requiring attention” focused primarily on anti-money laundering and cybersecurity-related issues. The matter was subsequently referred to the NYDFS’s Consumer Protection and Financial Enforcement Division for investigation. In March 2021, the NYDFS informed RHC of alleged violations of applicable (i) anti-money laundering and New York Banking Law requirements, including the failure to maintain and certify a compliant anti-money laundering program, (ii) notification provisions under RHC’s Supervisory Agreement with the NYDFS, and (iii) cybersecurity and virtual currency requirements, including deficiencies in our policies and procedures regarding risk assessment, lack of an adequate incident response and business continuity plan, and deficiencies in our application development security. RHC and the NYDFS have reached a settlement in principle with respect to these allegations, subject to final documentation, in connection with which, among other things, RHC expects to pay a monetary penalty and engage a monitor. Additionally, in April 2021, the California Attorney General’s Office issued an investigative subpoena to RHC, seeking documents and answers to interrogatories about RHC’s trading platform, business and operations, application of California’s commodities regulations to RHC, and other matters. RHC is cooperating with this investigation. We cannot predict the outcome of this investigation or any consequences that might result from it. Account Takeovers In November 2020, FINRA Enforcement commenced an investigation into RHF concerning account takeovers, or circumstances under which an unauthorized actor successfully logs into a customer account, as well as anti-money laundering and cybersecurity issues. Since February 2021, RHF has received requests for documents and information from the SEC’s Enforcement Division in connection with its investigation into account takeovers and, more recently, suspicious activity report filings and issues related to the Electronic Funds Transfer Act. Additionally, state regulators, including the New York Attorney General’s Office, have opened inquiries into RHM, RHF, and RHC related to account takeovers. We are cooperating with these investigations and inquiries. The SEC’s Examinations Division also conducted an examination and identified deficiencies, to which RHF responded, with respect to, among other things, account takeovers and identity theft in connection with new account opening. 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 seek monetary damages and injunctive relief. The matter is currently in the discovery stage. 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 alleges 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 alleges 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 May 2021, the state court denied RHF’s motion for a preliminary injunction, finding that RHF would not suffer irreparable harm if MSD proceeded with the pending administrative action, but determined that RHF may seek a declaration that the disputed regulation is unlawful without first exhausting its remedies in the administrative action. In September 2021, the parties filed cross-motions for partial judgment on the pleadings and a hearing was held on those motions in December 2021. 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 has filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. 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 “MDL”). 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 November 2021, the court dismissed the federal antitrust complaint without prejudice, and 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, and plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in connection with the federal antitrust tranche. In January 2022, the court dismissed the state law complaint with prejudice. In February 2022, Robinhood moved to dismiss the amended complaint filed in connection with the federal antitrust tranche. 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, 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’s Division of Examinations and 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. The SEC’s Division of Examinations concluded their examinations related to the Early 2021 Trading Restrictions. In February 2021, SEC staff notified us of their findings to which we are in the process of responding. FINRA has also requested information about policies, procedures, and supervision related to employee trading generally. In addition, we have received information and testimony requests from certain committees and members of the U.S. Congress and Mr. Tenev, among others, has provided testimony with respect to the Early 2021 Trading Restrictions. We are cooperating with these investigations and examinations. Registration Requirements for Member Personnel In July 2021, RHF received a FINRA investigative request seeking documents and information related to its compliance with FINRA registration requirements for member personnel, including related to the FINRA non-registration status of Mr. Tenev and Co-Founder and Chief Creative Officer Mr. Bhatt. Robinhood is cooperating with the investigation. 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 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. Plaintiff seek 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. Pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, the deadline for the court to appoint a lead putative class plaintiff is March 17, 2022. 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 claims for 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.

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. Amounts accrued for contingencies in the aggregate were $57.6 million and $84.8 million as of December 31, 2020 and 2021. In our opinion, an adequate accrual had been made as of December 31, 2021 to provide for the probable losses of which we are aware and for which we can reasonably estimate an amount.

The securities industry is highly regulated and many aspects of our business involve substantial risk of liability. In past years, there has been an increasing incidence of litigation involving the brokerage industry, including class action suits that generally seek substantial damages. Damages may include, in some cases, punitive damages. Compliance and trading problems that are reported to federal and state regulators, exchanges, or other SROs by dissatisfied users are investigated by such regulatory bodies, and, if pursued by such regulatory bodies or such users, may rise to the level of arbitration or disciplinary action. We are also subject to periodic regulatory audits and inspections.

Like other brokerage firms, 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 for which no accrual has been made or which have a potential loss in excess of amounts accrued, we believe, based on current knowledge, that any losses or ranges of losses (in excess of amounts accrued, if applicable) as of December 31, 2021 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, estimates, 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.

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.

A consolidated putative class action lawsuit relating to service outages on our stock trading platform on March 2-3, 2020 and March 9, 2020 (the “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. Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification, which we oppose, and our motion for summary judgment in favor of Robinhood are currently pending.

The SEC’s Examinations Division conducted an examination and identified deficiencies, to which RHF responded, with respect to account takeovers, identity theft in connection with new account opening, processes for approving or rejecting certain accounts for options trading, and customer support response times. Certain state regulatory authorities are conducting investigations regarding RHF’s options trading and related customer communications and displays and options trading approval process. RHF is cooperating with the regulators’ requests. FINRA also conducted an investigation and reached a settlement, described below, with RHF regarding the same options trading issues.

On June 30, 2021, RHF resolved with FINRA, on a no admit, no deny basis, certain investigations and examinations, including investigations into systems outages, RHF’s options product offering, and margin-related communications with customers, among others. The resolution did not address all the matters FINRA is investigating, including those relating to the Early 2021 Trading Restrictions (as defined below), account takeovers and anti-money laundering issues, RHS’s fractional share trade reporting, customer support procedures, or customer arbitration agreements. RHF and RHS have continued to cooperate with FINRA on these matters. The resolution involved the following components: (i) charges of violations of FINRA rules; (ii) a fine of $57.0 million; (iii) customer restitution of approximately $12.6 million; (iv) a censure; and (v) engagement of an independent consultant. In July 2021, we paid the $57.0 million penalty in cash. As of December 31, 2021, we had paid all of the customer restitution.

In July 2020, the NYDFS issued a report of its examination of RHC citing a number of “matters requiring attention” focused primarily on anti-money laundering and cybersecurity-related issues. The matter was subsequently referred to the NYDFS’s Consumer Protection and Financial Enforcement Division for investigation. In March 2021, the NYDFS informed RHC of alleged violations of applicable (i) anti-money laundering and New York Banking Law requirements, including the failure to maintain and certify a compliant anti-money laundering program, (ii) notification provisions under RHC’s Supervisory Agreement with the NYDFS, and (iii) cybersecurity and virtual currency requirements, including deficiencies in our policies and procedures regarding risk assessment, lack of an adequate incident response and business continuity plan, and deficiencies in our application development security. RHC and the NYDFS have reached a settlement in principle with respect to these allegations, subject to final documentation, in connection with which, among other things, RHC expects to pay a monetary penalty and engage a monitor.

Additionally, in April 2021, the California Attorney General’s Office issued an investigative subpoena to RHC, seeking documents and answers to interrogatories about RHC’s trading platform, business and operations, application of California’s commodities regulations to RHC, and other matters. RHC is cooperating with this investigation. We cannot predict the outcome of this investigation or any consequences that might result from it.

In November 2020, FINRA Enforcement commenced an investigation into RHF concerning account takeovers, or circumstances under which an unauthorized actor successfully logs into a customer account, as well as anti-money laundering and cybersecurity issues. Since February 2021, RHF has received requests for documents and information from the SEC’s Enforcement Division in connection with its investigation into account takeovers and, more recently, suspicious activity report filings and issues related to the Electronic Funds Transfer Act. Additionally, state regulators, including the New York Attorney General’s Office, have opened inquiries into RHM, RHF, and RHC related to account takeovers. We are cooperating with these investigations and inquiries. The SEC’s Examinations Division also conducted an examination and identified deficiencies, to which RHF responded, with respect to, among other things, account takeovers and identity theft in connection with new account opening.

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 seek monetary damages and injunctive relief. The matter is currently in the discovery stage.

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 alleges 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 alleges 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 May 2021, the state court denied RHF’s motion for a preliminary injunction, finding that RHF would not suffer irreparable harm if MSD proceeded with the pending administrative action, but determined that RHF may seek a declaration that the disputed regulation is unlawful without first exhausting its remedies in the administrative action. In September

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 has filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.

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 “MDL”). 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 November 2021, the court dismissed the federal antitrust complaint without prejudice, and 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, and plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in connection with the federal antitrust tranche. In January 2022, the court dismissed the state law complaint with prejudice. In February 2022, Robinhood moved to dismiss the amended complaint filed in connection with the federal antitrust tranche.

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, 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’s Division of Examinations and 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. The SEC’s Division of Examinations concluded their examinations related to the Early 2021 Trading Restrictions. In February 2021, SEC staff notified us of their findings to which we are in the process of responding. FINRA has also requested information about policies, procedures, and supervision related to employee trading generally. In addition, we have received information and testimony requests from

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 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. Plaintiff seek 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. Pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, the deadline for the court to appoint a lead putative class plaintiff is March 17, 2022.

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 claims for 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.