COMMITMENTS & CONTINGENCIES	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2025
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
COMMITMENTS & CONTINGENCIES	NOTE 14: 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 $128 million as of December 31, 2024 and $61 million as of September 30, 2025. 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, and many other industries in which we operate, are 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, advisory, cryptocurrency, derivatives, and credit card 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, other SROs, or international regulators 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 September 30, 2025 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, Robinhood Financial LLC (“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 unspecified monetary 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. In March 2024, Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification, which Robinhood opposed. In October 2024, the court denied class certification without prejudice. In June 2025, Robinhood agreed to a settlement in principle with plaintiffs, which will be subject to approval by the court. State Regulatory Matters The New York Attorney General is conducting an investigation into brokerage execution quality and collaring the prices of certain trade orders. The Massachusetts Securities Division (“MSD”) is examining RHF’s customer complaint supervision, the disruptions experienced by Blue Oceans ATS, LLC (“BOATS”) during the Robinhood 24 Hour Market overnight trading session on August 4-5, 2024, and the offerings of presidential election and sports event contracts. The Florida Attorney General is conducting an investigation concerning, among other things, representations about cryptocurrency trading costs and/or fees. We are cooperating with these investigations. Brokerage Enforcement Matters The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) Enforcement and Examination staff are conducting investigations related to, among other things, RHS’s and RHF’s compliance with best execution obligations and the disruptions experienced by BOATS during the Robinhood 24 Hour Market overnight trading session on August 4-5, 2024. In July 2025, FINRA advised us in writing that it had closed the previously disclosed investigation into matters related to RHS’s and RHF’s supervision of technology. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) is investigating issues related to compliance with the Electronic Funds Transfer Act (“EFTA”). Early 2021 Trading Restrictions Matters Beginning on January 28, 2021, due to increased deposit requirements imposed on RHS by the National Securities Clearing Corporation (“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 U.S. trading 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 unspecified 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 January 2022, the court dismissed the state law claims with prejudice. In August 2023, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s order. In May 2022, the court dismissed the federal antitrust claims with prejudice. In June 2024, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s order. 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. The complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages, costs and expenses, and other relief. 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. In November 2023, the court denied Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification without prejudice. In April 2024, the court denied Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a renewed motion for class certification. On May 28, 2024, Robinhood notified the court that it had reached a settlement in principle with the Plaintiffs in their individual capacities. Robinhood subsequently notified the court that one of these Plaintiffs was unwilling to sign the settlement agreement and requested additional time to negotiate with that individual. On August 14, 2024, the court dismissed the lead and named Plaintiffs’ claims. Robinhood has reached settlements with a number of remaining individual plaintiffs. Robinhood’s motion to compel arbitration for the remaining Robinhood customer plaintiffs has been granted. RHM, RHF, RHS, and our Chief Executive Officer (“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 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. As previously disclosed, on March 6, 2025, we resolved FINRA’s investigations into these matters as part of the March 2025 FINRA Settlement (as defined below). 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 unspecified 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 2024, the court granted Robinhood’s motion to dismiss the second amended complaint without leave to amend. In February 2024, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the 9th Circuit. On August 29, 2025, the 9th Circuit issued its opinion affirming in part and reversing in part the district court. Robinhood’s petition for rehearing en banc was denied. 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 unspecified 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 November 2021 Data Security Incident. The board of directors has formed a Demand Review Committee that is reviewing the demand. Pay Transparency Litigation In July 2024, RHM, Robinhood Money, LLC, and RHC were sued in a putative class action captioned John Milito v. Robinhood Markets, Inc. et. al., alleging that Robinhood violated Washington’s Equal Pay and Opportunity Act, because some of the Company’s job postings allegedly failed to include a wage scale or salary range. The complaint seeks unspecified total statutory damages, attorneys’ fees and costs, injunctive relief, and declaratory relief. The case was stayed in the Superior Court in King County in Washington pending a certified question to the Washington Supreme Court. In September 2025, the Washington Supreme Court issued an opinion addressing the certified question and held that a job applicant for a job posting that failed to include a wage scale or salary range does not need to prove they are a “bona fide” or “good faith” applicant to obtain remedies under the applicable statute. The stay has been lifted and the case is proceeding in discovery. Cash Sweep Litigation In October 2024, RHM, RHF, and RHS were sued in a putative class action captioned Dey v. Robinhood Markets, Inc. et. al., in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Plaintiff asserts breach of fiduciary duty, gross negligence, negligent misrepresentation and omissions, breach of implied covenant of good faith and dealing, and violation of California’s unfair competition law based on allegations that defendants failed to pay a reasonable rate of interest to non-Robinhood Gold brokerage account holders on cash balances swept to program bank deposit programs. The complaint seeks, among other things, certification of the class, unspecified monetary, punitive, treble, and statutory damages, restitution, disgorgement, attorneys’ fees and costs, injunctive relief, and declaratory relief. In January 2025, Robinhood filed a motion to dismiss. On April 28, 2025, the court granted in part and denied in part Robinhood’s motion to dismiss. In May 2025, RHM, RHF, and RHS were sued in a putative class action captioned Deeney v. Robinhood Markets, Inc. et al., in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, which also made allegations related to Robinhood’s cash sweep program. The complaint sought, among other things, certification of the class, unspecified monetary damages, attorneys’ fees and costs, and restitution. The parties in Dey and Deeney have agreed to consolidate the matters and Plaintiffs have filed an amended consolidated complaint. The complaint seeks, among other things, certification of the class, unspecified monetary, punitive, treble, and statutory damages, restitution, disgorgement, attorneys’ fees and costs, injunctive relief, and declaratory relief. Robinhood has moved to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. Event Contracts Litigation In June 2025, RHM and Robinhood Derivatives, LLC (“RHD”) were sued along with several co-defendants, in state court in six states (Georgia, Illinois, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Ohio and South Carolina) by Georgia Gambling Recovery LLC, Illinois Gambling Recovery LLC, Kentucky Gambling Recovery LLC, Massachusetts Gambling Recovery LLC, Ohio Gambling Recovery LLC, and South Carolina Gambling Recovery LLC respectively. Each plaintiff asserts a claim under the respective state’s Statute of Anne, which are statutes that permit recovery of gambling losses under certain conditions, which vary by state. Each plaintiff seeks damages for losses allegedly sustained in trading certain event contracts, including damage multipliers in certain states, attorney’s fees and costs, and declaratory relief. Robinhood has removed all six cases to federal court. In July 2025, RHM and RHD, among others, were sued by the Blue Lake Rancheria, Chicken Ranch Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians, and Picayune Rancheria of the Chukchansi Indians in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The complaint alleges that certain event contracts offered by RHD are unlawful sports gambling activity. The tribes allege several causes of action including violation of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, violation of tribal gaming Ordinances, civil violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, infringement of tribal sovereignty, and false advertising under the Lanham Act. The complaint seeks injunctive relief, declaratory relief, damages, treble damages, costs, and attorney’s fees. In August 2025, a similar suit was filed against RHM and RHD, among others, by the Ho-Chunk Nation in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin alleging the same facts and causes of action and seeking the same relief. In September 2025, plaintiffs in the Northern District of California matter moved for a preliminary injunction, which Robinhood has opposed. In August 2025, RHD filed suits in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada and U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey seeking injunctive relief from enforcement of Nevada and New Jersey state gaming laws respectively. In September 2025, RHD filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts seeking similar injunctive relief from enforcement of Massachusetts state gaming laws. New Jersey has agreed to a preliminary injunction pending the outcome of its appeal in the Third Circuit. In Nevada and Massachusetts, the states have agreed to refrain from enforcing their state gaming laws pending the outcome of RHD’s pending preliminary injunction motions.

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 $128 million as of December 31, 2024 and $61 million as of September 30, 2025. 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.

The securities industry, and many other industries in which we operate, are 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, advisory, cryptocurrency, derivatives, and credit card 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, other SROs, or international regulators investigate issues related to regulatory compliance

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 September 30, 2025 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.

Beginning in December 2020, multiple putative securities fraud class action lawsuits were filed against RHM, Robinhood Financial LLC (“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 unspecified monetary 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. In March 2024, Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification, which Robinhood opposed. In October 2024, the court denied class certification without prejudice. In June 2025, Robinhood agreed to a settlement in principle with plaintiffs, which will be subject to approval by the court.

The New York Attorney General is conducting an investigation into brokerage execution quality and collaring the prices of certain trade orders. The Massachusetts Securities Division (“MSD”) is examining RHF’s customer complaint supervision, the disruptions experienced by Blue Oceans ATS, LLC (“BOATS”) during the Robinhood 24 Hour Market overnight trading session on August 4-5, 2024, and the offerings of presidential election and sports event contracts. The Florida Attorney General is conducting an investigation concerning, among other things, representations about cryptocurrency trading costs and/or fees. We are cooperating with these investigations.

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) Enforcement and Examination staff are conducting investigations related to, among other things, RHS’s and RHF’s compliance with best execution obligations and the disruptions experienced by BOATS during the Robinhood 24 Hour Market overnight trading session on August 4-5, 2024. In July 2025, FINRA advised us in writing that it had closed the previously disclosed investigation into matters related to RHS’s and RHF’s supervision of technology.

Beginning on January 28, 2021, due to increased deposit requirements imposed on RHS by the National Securities Clearing Corporation (“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 U.S. trading 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 unspecified 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 November 2021, plaintiffs for the federal securities tranche filed a complaint alleging violations of Sections 9(a) and 10(b) of the Exchange Act. The complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages, costs and expenses, and other relief. 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. In November 2023, the court denied Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification without prejudice. In April 2024, the court denied Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a renewed motion for class certification. On May 28, 2024, Robinhood notified the court that it had reached a settlement in principle with the Plaintiffs in their individual capacities. Robinhood subsequently notified the court that one of these Plaintiffs was unwilling to sign the settlement agreement and requested additional time to negotiate with that individual. On August 14, 2024, the court dismissed the lead and named Plaintiffs’ claims. Robinhood has reached settlements with a number of remaining individual plaintiffs. Robinhood’s motion to compel arbitration for the remaining Robinhood customer plaintiffs has been granted.

RHM, RHF, RHS, and our Chief Executive Officer (“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 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. As previously disclosed, on March 6, 2025, we resolved FINRA’s investigations into these matters as part of the March 2025 FINRA Settlement (as defined below).

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 unspecified 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 2024, the court granted Robinhood’s motion to dismiss the second amended complaint without leave to amend. In February 2024, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the 9th Circuit. On August 29, 2025, the 9th Circuit issued its opinion affirming in part and reversing in part the district court. Robinhood’s petition for rehearing en banc was denied.

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 unspecified 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 November 2021 Data Security Incident. The board of directors has formed a Demand Review Committee that is reviewing the demand.

In July 2024, RHM, Robinhood Money, LLC, and RHC were sued in a putative class action captioned John Milito v. Robinhood Markets, Inc. et. al., alleging that Robinhood violated Washington’s Equal Pay and Opportunity Act, because some of the Company’s job postings allegedly failed to include a wage scale or salary range. The complaint seeks unspecified total statutory damages, attorneys’ fees and costs, injunctive relief, and declaratory relief. The case was stayed in the Superior Court in King County in Washington pending a certified question to the Washington Supreme Court. In September 2025, the Washington Supreme Court issued an opinion addressing the certified question and held that a job applicant for a job posting that failed to include a wage scale or salary range does not need to prove they are a “bona fide” or “good faith” applicant to obtain remedies under the applicable statute. The stay has been lifted and the case is proceeding in discovery.

In October 2024, RHM, RHF, and RHS were sued in a putative class action captioned Dey v. Robinhood Markets, Inc. et. al., in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Plaintiff asserts breach of fiduciary duty, gross negligence, negligent misrepresentation and omissions, breach of implied covenant of good faith and dealing, and violation of California’s unfair competition law based on allegations that defendants failed to pay a reasonable rate of interest to non-Robinhood Gold brokerage account holders on cash balances swept to program bank deposit programs. The complaint seeks, among other things, certification of the class, unspecified monetary, punitive, treble, and statutory damages, restitution, disgorgement, attorneys’ fees and costs, injunctive relief, and declaratory relief. In January 2025, Robinhood filed a motion to dismiss. On April 28, 2025, the court granted in part and denied in part Robinhood’s motion to dismiss. In May 2025, RHM, RHF, and RHS were sued in a putative class action captioned Deeney v. Robinhood Markets, Inc. et al., in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, which also made allegations related to Robinhood’s cash sweep program. The complaint sought, among other things, certification of the class, unspecified monetary damages, attorneys’ fees and costs, and restitution. The parties in Dey and Deeney have agreed to consolidate the matters and Plaintiffs have filed an amended consolidated complaint. The complaint seeks, among other things, certification of the class, unspecified monetary, punitive, treble, and statutory damages, restitution, disgorgement, attorneys’ fees and costs, injunctive relief, and declaratory relief. Robinhood has moved to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint.

In June 2025, RHM and Robinhood Derivatives, LLC (“RHD”) were sued along with several co-defendants, in state court in six states (Georgia, Illinois, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Ohio and South Carolina) by Georgia Gambling Recovery LLC, Illinois Gambling Recovery LLC, Kentucky Gambling Recovery LLC, Massachusetts Gambling Recovery LLC, Ohio Gambling Recovery LLC, and South Carolina Gambling Recovery LLC respectively. Each plaintiff asserts a claim under the respective state’s Statute of Anne, which are statutes that permit recovery of gambling losses under certain conditions, which vary by state. Each plaintiff seeks damages for losses allegedly sustained in trading certain event contracts, including damage multipliers in certain states, attorney’s fees and costs, and declaratory relief. Robinhood has removed all six cases to federal court.

In July 2025, RHM and RHD, among others, were sued by the Blue Lake Rancheria, Chicken Ranch Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians, and Picayune Rancheria of the Chukchansi Indians in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The complaint alleges that certain event contracts offered by RHD are unlawful sports gambling activity. The tribes allege several causes of action including violation of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, violation of tribal gaming Ordinances, civil violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, infringement of tribal sovereignty, and false advertising under the Lanham Act. The complaint seeks injunctive relief, declaratory relief, damages, treble damages, costs, and attorney’s fees. In August 2025, a similar suit was filed against RHM and RHD, among others, by the Ho-Chunk Nation in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin alleging the same facts and causes of action and seeking the same relief. In September 2025, plaintiffs in the Northern District of California matter moved for a preliminary injunction, which Robinhood has opposed.

In August 2025, RHD filed suits in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada and U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey seeking injunctive relief from enforcement of Nevada and New Jersey state gaming laws respectively. In September 2025, RHD filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts seeking similar injunctive relief from enforcement of Massachusetts state gaming laws. New Jersey has agreed to a preliminary injunction pending the outcome of its appeal in the Third Circuit. In Nevada and Massachusetts, the states have agreed to refrain from enforcing their state gaming laws pending the outcome of RHD’s pending preliminary injunction motions.