Fintech

Robinhood to SEC: Gamification? It’s free speech!

"Robinhood seems intent on throwing as many possible arguments as possible," law professor Stephen Diamond said.

A photo-illustration of Robinhood CEO Vlad Tenev with red tape over his mouth.

Robinhood CEO Vlad Tenev's company says the First Amendment limits the SEC's ability to regulate the way it engages with users.

Photoillustration: Getty Images; Protocol

Accused of turning stock investing into a dangerous game, Robinhood is fighting back by invoking a basic constitutional right: free speech.

Robinhood cited the First Amendment to defend the way the online brokerage communicates and engages with its users as a response earlier this month to an inquiry from the SEC into the way brokerages engage with customers. "The First Amendment strictly limits the SEC's ability to regulate digital engagement practices based on their communicative content," David Dusseault, chief operating officer and president of Robinhood Financial said in an Oct. 1 letter to the SEC provided to Protocol.

The letter underlines what appears to be a key component of Robinhood's legal game plan, which echoes past debates over SEC rules on what public companies and investors are allowed to tell customers and the public. But some analysts argue that Robinhood's use of the First Amendment is flawed -- and even a bit of a head-scratcher.

"This is a stretch in their comment letter," Bruce Weber, dean of the Lerner College of Business and Economics at the University of Delaware, told Protocol, pointing to the statement arguing that the First Amendment limits the SEC's ability to regulate digital engagement practices.

Robinhood's letter was in response to the SEC's call for "information and comment" on the "digital engagement practices" of stock brokers and dealers, including "behavioral prompts, differential marketing, [and] game-like features," which the agency noted was "commonly referred to as gamification."

SEC Chair Gary Gensler said the agency plans to focus on features that "may encourage investors to trade more often, invest in different products, or change their investment strategy" and the use of tools meant to "increase revenues, data collection, or customer time spent on the platform."

The SEC request did not mention Robinhood specifically. But the company has long been portrayed as the poster child for gamification.

Last year, the company was sued by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, which accused Robinhood of unlawfulness due to its "aggressive tactics to attract inexperienced investors, its use of gamification strategies to manipulate customers, and its failure to prevent frequent outages and disruptions on its trading platform." These charges became magnified in January during the GameStop trading frenzy, which led to congressional hearings into Robinhood's business model.

Robinhood denied those claims, and argued in its letter to the SEC that platform features "are designed to promote financial literacy and investment awareness and to provide customers with information they need and want in order to make informed and self-directed decisions about their future investment goals and needs."

"Just as a painting or a symphony is entitled to no less First Amendment protection than a novel or a newspaper article, digital platforms do not lose First Amendment protection when they express ideas through 'animation and graphics' or 'visual cues,'" Dusseault wrote.

These features, he argued, are "ubiquitous on today's e-commerce and other digital platforms" and they are based on Robinhood's mission to make stock market investing "not an activity reserved for the wealthy, but one that should be broadly accessible to the masses."

University of Chicago law professor Todd Henderson said that critics like the SEC essentially believe that the "digital engagement" tools used by companies like Robinhood "lead to bad choices by individual investors."

Robinhood's free speech counterargument also comes across as misleading, said Santa Clara University law professor Stephen Diamond, who argued that the company is "attempting to recharacterize the SEC inquiry as an intrusion on speech."

"The SEC release refers to 'practices,' which is not, of course, speech but, well, a practice," he told Protocol. "It seems clear the SEC is understandably concerned about a set of new practices that are luring thousands of often inexperienced and young investors into the securities markets. That's clearly in the strike zone."

Weber of the University of Delaware said the SEC request is "reasonable" and "not broad," and "seems appropriate in the context of investment advice."

Robinhood declined further comment. The company's 37-page response was striking, and appeared to underscore how the company sees the SEC probe as a serious threat to its business, analysts said.

"The length of their letter is unusual," Diamond told Protocol. "They also seem to be getting way ahead of the process. It is not clear how the SEC intends to regulate, if they do regulate. But Robinhood seems intent on throwing as many possible arguments at this effort as possible, perhaps in the hope — likely in vain — that this will discourage the SEC."

Henderson echoed that view, noting that the SEC "just sent this open inquiry and hasn't even issued a rule yet." It's also typically considered a bad idea for regulated companies to take on what appears to be a combative posture toward the SEC, according to analysts.

But Robinhood's letter also suggests that the SEC probe has spooked the company.

"These issues of digital engagement are absolutely essential to their business," Henderson said. "It could be existential for them. That means you're more likely to see them be aggressive, whether that means aggressive court challenge or just aggressively fighting the rules."

Robinhood also needs to worry about possible SEC action on a major revenue stream: rebates earned for sending trade orders to market makers, also known as payment for order flow. Gensler has strongly suggested the SEC could ban it.

"They are likely fighting on both fronts," Diamond said. "Perhaps they have a profitable business without payment for order flow, but if they have to give up digital engagement practices, then they don't look any different than TD Ameritrade or any other broker with a website."

Policy

Musk’s texts reveal what tech’s most powerful people really want

From Jack Dorsey to Joe Rogan, Musk’s texts are chock-full of überpowerful people, bending a knee to Twitter’s once and (still maybe?) future king.

“Maybe Oprah would be interested in joining the Twitter board if my bid succeeds,” one text reads.

Photo illustration: Patrick Pleul/picture alliance via Getty Images; Protocol

Elon Musk’s text inbox is a rarefied space. It’s a place where tech’s wealthiest casually commit to spending billions of dollars with little more than a thumbs-up emoji and trade tips on how to rewrite the rules for how hundreds of millions of people around the world communicate.

Now, Musk’s ongoing legal battle with Twitter is giving the rest of us a fleeting glimpse into that world. The collection of Musk’s private texts that was made public this week is chock-full of tech power brokers. While the messages are meant to reveal something about Musk’s motivations — and they do — they also say a lot about how things get done and deals get made among some of the most powerful people in the world.

Keep Reading Show less
Issie Lapowsky

Issie Lapowsky ( @issielapowsky) is Protocol's chief correspondent, covering the intersection of technology, politics, and national affairs. She also oversees Protocol's fellowship program. Previously, she was a senior writer at Wired, where she covered the 2016 election and the Facebook beat in its aftermath. Prior to that, Issie worked as a staff writer for Inc. magazine, writing about small business and entrepreneurship. She has also worked as an on-air contributor for CBS News and taught a graduate-level course at New York University's Center for Publishing on how tech giants have affected publishing.

Sponsored Content

Great products are built on strong patents

Experts say robust intellectual property protection is essential to ensure the long-term R&D required to innovate and maintain America's technology leadership.

Every great tech product that you rely on each day, from the smartphone in your pocket to your music streaming service and navigational system in the car, shares one important thing: part of its innovative design is protected by intellectual property (IP) laws.

From 5G to artificial intelligence, IP protection offers a powerful incentive for researchers to create ground-breaking products, and governmental leaders say its protection is an essential part of maintaining US technology leadership. To quote Secretary of Commerce Gina Raimondo: "intellectual property protection is vital for American innovation and entrepreneurship.”

Keep Reading Show less
James Daly
James Daly has a deep knowledge of creating brand voice identity, including understanding various audiences and targeting messaging accordingly. He enjoys commissioning, editing, writing, and business development, particularly in launching new ventures and building passionate audiences. Daly has led teams large and small to multiple awards and quantifiable success through a strategy built on teamwork, passion, fact-checking, intelligence, analytics, and audience growth while meeting budget goals and production deadlines in fast-paced environments. Daly is the Editorial Director of 2030 Media and a contributor at Wired.
Fintech

Circle’s CEO: This is not the time to ‘go crazy’

Jeremy Allaire is leading the stablecoin powerhouse in a time of heightened regulation.

“It’s a complex environment. So every CEO and every board has to be a little bit cautious, because there’s a lot of uncertainty,” Circle CEO Jeremy Allaire told Protocol at Converge22.

Photo: Circle

Sitting solo on a San Francisco stage, Circle CEO Jeremy Allaire asked tennis superstar Serena Williams what it’s like to face “unrelenting skepticism.”

“What do you do when someone says you can’t do this?” Allaire asked the athlete turned VC, who was beaming into Circle’s Converge22 convention by video.

Keep Reading Show less
Benjamin Pimentel

Benjamin Pimentel ( @benpimentel) covers crypto and fintech from San Francisco. He has reported on many of the biggest tech stories over the past 20 years for the San Francisco Chronicle, Dow Jones MarketWatch and Business Insider, from the dot-com crash, the rise of cloud computing, social networking and AI to the impact of the Great Recession and the COVID crisis on Silicon Valley and beyond. He can be reached at bpimentel@protocol.com or via Google Voice at (925) 307-9342.

Enterprise

Is Salesforce still a growth company? Investors are skeptical

Salesforce is betting that customer data platform Genie and new Slack features can push the company to $50 billion in revenue by 2026. But investors are skeptical about the company’s ability to deliver.

Photo: Marlena Sloss/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Salesforce has long been enterprise tech’s golden child. The company said everything customers wanted to hear and did everything investors wanted to see: It produced robust, consistent growth from groundbreaking products combined with an aggressive M&A strategy and a cherished culture, all operating under the helm of a bombastic, but respected, CEO and team of well-coiffed executives.

Dreamforce is the embodiment of that success. Every year, alongside frustrating San Francisco residents, the over-the-top celebration serves as a battle cry to the enterprise software industry, reminding everyone that Marc Benioff’s mighty fiefdom is poised to expand even deeper into your corporate IT stack.

Keep Reading Show less
Joe Williams

Joe Williams is a writer-at-large at Protocol. He previously covered enterprise software for Protocol, Bloomberg and Business Insider. Joe can be reached at JoeWilliams@Protocol.com. To share information confidentially, he can also be contacted on a non-work device via Signal (+1-309-265-6120) or JPW53189@protonmail.com.

Policy

The US and EU are splitting on tech policy. That’s putting the web at risk.

A conversation with Cédric O, the former French minister of state for digital.

“With the difficulty of the U.S. in finding political agreement or political basis to legislate more, we are facing a risk of decoupling in the long term between the EU and the U.S.”

Photo: David Paul Morris/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Cédric O, France’s former minister of state for digital, has been an advocate of Europe’s approach to tech and at the forefront of the continent’s relations with U.S. giants. Protocol caught up with O last week at a conference in New York focusing on social media’s negative effects on society and the possibilities of blockchain-based protocols for alternative networks.

O said watching the U.S. lag in tech policy — even as some states pass their own measures and federal bills gain momentum — has made him worry about the EU and U.S. decoupling. While not as drastic as a disentangling of economic fortunes between the West and China, such a divergence, as O describes it, could still make it functionally impossible for companies to serve users on both sides of the Atlantic with the same product.

Keep Reading Show less
Ben Brody

Ben Brody (@ BenBrodyDC) is a senior reporter at Protocol focusing on how Congress, courts and agencies affect the online world we live in. He formerly covered tech policy and lobbying (including antitrust, Section 230 and privacy) at Bloomberg News, where he previously reported on the influence industry, government ethics and the 2016 presidential election. Before that, Ben covered business news at CNNMoney and AdAge, and all manner of stories in and around New York. He still loves appearing on the New York news radio he grew up with.

Latest Stories
Bulletins