简体中文
繁體中文
English
Pусский
日本語
ภาษาไทย
Tiếng Việt
Bahasa Indonesia
Español
हिन्दी
Filippiiniläinen
Français
Deutsch
Português
Türkçe
한국어
العربية
Robinhood Sues Third Parties over Contract Business
Abstract:Robinhood, the trading platform offering commission-free stock and crypto trading, has filed lawsuits against Nevada and New Jersey regulators over mounting threats to its expanding event contract business. The company alleges it faces an “immediate threat of civil penalties and criminal prosecution” in both states, prompting swift legal action to protect its operations.

Robinhood, the trading platform offering commission-free stock and crypto trading, has filed lawsuits against Nevada and New Jersey regulators over mounting threats to its expanding event contract business. The company alleges it faces an “immediate threat of civil penalties and criminal prosecution” in both states, prompting swift legal action to protect its operations.
Expanding into Prediction Markets
The lawsuits come at a time when Robinhood is aggressively growing its footprint in event contracts, also known as prediction markets. These contracts allow traders to speculate on the outcome of real-world events, ranging from economic indicators to sports results.
Recently, Robinhood expanded its offerings to include professional and college football, broadening its appeal among traders looking to engage with sports betting-style contracts through a regulated trading platform.
Since the launch of the prediction market business, the company has reported a trading volume of over a billion contracts, highlighting the rapid adoption of the new product line. At the same time, Robinhood has expanded its service scope to include professional football and college football.
Variety of Event-Based Contracts
Beyond sports, Robinhoods prediction markets already cover a wide spectrum of topics,
Cryptocurrencies – allowing speculation on token price thresholds.
Economic Indicators – such as inflation or jobs data releases.
Other Sports – broadening engagement beyond traditional financial markets.
By offering this diversity, Robinhood is positioning itself at the intersection of trading, speculation, and entertainment.
Regulatory Issue
Nevada and New Jersey, both of which have well-established gambling oversight frameworks, appear to be challenging Robinhood‘s event contracts because they may constitute unlicensed gambling activity. Robinhood’s lawsuits argue that its products are legally compliant and fall under the category of trading contracts rather than gambling wagers.
The company claims that without court intervention, it could face penalties that would disrupt its expansion strategy and undermine confidence in its event contract markets.
Robinhoods legal battles underscore the growing tension between innovative trading platforms and state regulators as financial products increasingly blur the line between investing and gambling. Prediction markets have gained popularity for their ability to crowdsource sentiment on future events, but they also face legal gray areas, particularly in the U.S.
If successful in its lawsuits, Robinhood could pave the way for broader adoption of prediction markets nationwide. On the other hand, defeat could restrict its ability to expand into lucrative markets like sports and cultural betting, where consumer interest is high.
Conclusion
Robinhoods decision to take Nevada and New Jersey regulators to court highlights the high stakes surrounding the future of event contracts in the United States. With billions of contracts already traded and strong demand from retail users, the company is betting that legal clarity will solidify its position as a leader in this fast-evolving sector.

Disclaimer:
The views in this article only represent the author's personal views, and do not constitute investment advice on this platform. This platform does not guarantee the accuracy, completeness and timeliness of the information in the article, and will not be liable for any loss caused by the use of or reliance on the information in the article.
Read more

In-Depth Uniglobe Markets Commission Fees and Spreads Analysis – What Traders Should Really Know
For experienced traders, the cost of execution is a critical factor in broker selection. Low spreads, fair commissions, and transparent pricing can be the difference between a profitable and a losing strategy over the long term. This has led many to scrutinize the offerings of brokers like Uniglobe Markets, which presents a tiered account structure promising competitive conditions. However, a professional evaluation demands more than a surface-level look at marketing claims. It requires a deep, data-driven analysis of the real trading costs, set against the backdrop of the broker's operational integrity and safety. This comprehensive Uniglobe Markets commission fees and spreads analysis will deconstruct the broker's pricing model, examining its account types, typical spreads, commission policies, and potential ancillary costs. Using data primarily sourced from the global broker inquiry platform WikiFX, we will provide a clear-eyed view of the Uniglobe Markets spreads commissions prici

In-Depth Review of Stonefort Securities Regulation and Oversight – A Trader's Guide to the Risks
For experienced traders, the process of selecting a new broker transcends a simple comparison of spreads and leverage. It is a meticulous due diligence exercise where the integrity of the broker's regulatory framework is paramount. Stonefort Securities, a relatively new entrant in the crowded brokerage space, presents a complex and often contradictory profile. On one hand, it boasts a modern MT5 platform and a stream of positive user testimonials. On the other hand, it is shadowed by severe regulatory warnings that question the very foundation of its operations. This in-depth review focuses on the core issue for any long-term trader: Stonefort Securities regulation and oversight. We will dissect the broker's corporate structure, scrutinize its licensing claims, and analyze what the data implies for trader protection and fund security. For traders evaluating whether Stonefort Securities is a trustworthy partner, understanding these details is not just important—it is essential.

FXPesa Review: Are Traders Facing High Slippage, Fund Losses & Withdrawal Denials?
Do FXPesa support officials fail to pick up your calls when you raise fund withdrawal requests with the broker? But are these officials always open to you regarding fund deposits? Do you frequently spot slippage and stop-loss order execution errors on the FXPesa login? These issues are increasingly becoming common with this forex broker. Consequently, many traders have expressed their dissatisfaction with the broker online. In this FXPesa Review article, we have shared some of these complaints. Take a look!

Trive Investigation: High Score, Hidden Risk - The Profit Paradox
A disturbing pattern has emerged regarding the broker Trive. Despite holding a high WikiFX score (7.91) and valid licenses in South Africa and Australia, recent investor reports suggest a significant disconnect between the platform's reputation and its treatment of profitable clients. While the regulatory paperwork appears in order, our data indicates that traders are facing sudden account freezes and accusations of "trading abuse" precisely when they attempt to withdraw profits. This report investigates why a seemingly "safe" broker is generating high-risk complaints.

