[SirLuxuryYacht]

My only question is how this will be viable since the RH user agreement states:

>>"I understand that Robinhood may at any time, at its sole discretion and without prior notice to Me: (i)prohibit or restrict My access to the use of the App or the Website or related services and My ability to trade, (ii) refuse to accept any of My transactions, (iii) refuse to execute any of My transactions, or (iv)terminate My Account. "

[0]: https://cdn.robinhood.com/assets/robinhood/legal/RHF-RHS%20U...

[pnt12]

My understanding is Terms of Service have little significance in courts: whatever a company writes in its ToS, it must still comply with the laws.

Facebook banning you due to some vague ToS? No problem, your access to Facebook isn't protected by law. An app which can affect your investments and finances? I don't know if I'm this case it's legal or no, but that's a whole different level.

[scythe]

Those sections seem to deal with actions taken against an individual user, not actions that affect a stock's price. In theory if Robinhood's actions are illegal (don't know) and if they caused losses to holders of GME (don't know, but likely) then plaintiffs could include people who don't even have Robinhood accounts and never agreed to that.

[mmcwilliams]

I think more to the point would be the arbitration agreement in section 38. Not condoning the behavior but it seems that kind of agreement might limit a class action suit.