此外，RHEU和Bitstamp Europe SA，是欧盟MiCA下获得许可的加密资产服务提供商，其条款于2024年12月30日生效。RHEU和Bitstamp Europe SA等要求须遵守强制性资本要求，该要求根据我们提供的服务而异。未能满足这些资本要求或未来对这些要求的任何提高可能会限制我们获得或维持授权的能力、限制运营灵活性或导致处罚或制裁。
Rothera与TIG作为合资企业拥有和运营，通过其子公司Rothera E & C运营一家期货和衍生品交易所和清算所。我们并不完全拥有或运营控制Rothera及其子公司，Rothera及其子公司采取的行动可能会对我们的业务、财务状况、运营业绩和声誉产生不利影响。
2025年11月19日，Robinhood投资了Rothera，这是一家合资企业，旨在运营一家独立的机构级期货和衍生品交易所和清算所。2026年1月20日，Rothera收购了Rothera E & C（一家获得CFTC许可的DLC、PCO和SEF）90%的已发行和发行股权，以加速期货和衍生产品产品的交付，包括预测市场。
Rothera是一家独立实体，拥有自己的管理团队和员工，负责合资企业的日常运营。虽然Robinhood有权指定Rothera董事会的大多数成员和一名代表在Rothera E & C董事会任职，并在Rothera董事会层面行使治理控制权以及Rothera治理文件中另有规定，但我们对Rothera或其任何子公司做出的所有运营、战略或商业决策没有决策权，某些决定可能会受到适用的监管要求的约束，或需要得到TIG和Rothera及其子公司其他股权持有人的同意，其中任何人都可能拥有与我们不一致的经济或其他商业利益。
作为经纪交易商，我们位于美国的子公司RHF、RHS和TradePMR受到联邦和州监管机构以及SRO的广泛监管，并受到涵盖证券行业各个方面的法律和法规的约束。同样，我们在英国的经纪交易商子公司，RHUK受到FCA的全面监管，包括消费者税，该税制定了标准，要求受监管的公司为零售客户提供良好的结果。这包括与产品和服务、价格和价值、消费者理解和消费者支持相关的结果。我们的TradePMR保险代理子公司受州保险监管机构的监管。联邦和州监管机构（以及，就RHUK而言，FCA）和SRO，包括SEC和FINRA，可以调查、谴责或罚款我们、发布停止令或以其他方式限制我们的运营、要求我们改变我们的业务实践、产品或服务、限制我们的收购活动或暂停或驱逐经纪交易商或其任何高级官员或员工。我们还可能受到与我们在金融产品适用性、监管、销售实践等方面的义务相关的其他监管变化的不利影响，受托或最佳利益标准的应用（包括解释什么构成“投资建议”的目的，美国证券交易委员会的“监管最佳利益”和国家证券法）在我们的业务和市场结构的背景下，任何可能限制我们的业务，增加我们的成本和损害我们的声誉。我们的子公司RHD在CFTC注册为期货交易商，在向客户提供期货产品方面也受到联邦和州监管机构以及自律组织的广泛监管。Rothera E & C是Rothera合资企业的子公司，也在CFTC注册，作为受监管的DLC、PCO和SEF运营，同样受到广泛的监管。同样，州总检察长和其他州监管机构，包括州证券和金融服务监管机构，可以代表州提起法律诉讼，以确保州法律得到遵守。此外，州总检察长或司法部等刑事当局可能会因我们违反适用法律、规则或法规而对我们提起民事或刑事诉讼。我们的子公司RAM和RHW根据《顾问法》在SEC注册为投资顾问。《顾问法》规定了对RIA的各种要求，包括信托义务、记录保存、运营协议和披露义务。《顾问法》赋予证券交易委员会等监管机构管理投资咨询公司的重大行政权力。如果SEC或其他政府机构确定RAM或RHV没有遵守相关法律或法规，他们可以处以罚款，暂停注册人和个别员工，或制定其他制裁措施，其中可能包括根据《顾问法》撤销RAM和RHV的注册。
作为投资公司和加密资产服务提供商，我们的子公司RHEU、Bitstamp Europe SA、Bitstamp金融服务有限公司，Bitstamp Asia Pte.有限公司，和Bitstamp UK Limited受到立陶宛、卢森堡、斯洛文尼亚、新加坡和英国监管机构的广泛监管，分别具体来说，我们的子公司RHEU和Bitstamp Europe S.A.，是MiCA下获得许可的加密资产服务提供商，其条款于2024年12月30日生效。除其他条款外，MiCA还为加密资产服务提供商引入了全面的授权和合规制度，包括与治理、储备、资本、资产保障、隔离和安全相关的要求。此外，我们的子公司RHEU和Bitstamp Financial Services Ltd.获得MiAID许可，可提供经纪、多边贸易设施和/或投资咨询服务。遵守MiAID对我们在欧盟的业务提出了广泛的监管要求，包括与客户分类、产品治理、交易报告和最佳执行标准相关的义务。由于持有MiCA和MiAID许可证，我们受到涵盖欧盟境内几乎所有金融和加密货币活动的全面监管。这种双重许可框架使我们受到广泛且不断发展的监督制度，管理传统金融工具、加密资产、客户保护、披露义务和运营标准。随着我们继续评估和调整欧盟的许可和监管框架，包括评估MiCA和MiAID实体的最佳结构，我们将面临监管监督重叠或不断变化的时期，这可能会导致合规成本增加、运营负担以及与任何变更相关的审批时间延长。
我们的某些子公司，包括Bitstamp Asia Pte。Ltd.和Bitstamp UK Limited在许多其他外国司法管辖区注册或受监管，并接受适用监管机构（包括MAS和FCA）的监督。这些监管框架通常施加与客户尽职调查、反洗钱、交易监控、报告和治理相关的持续合规要求。维护和更新任何这些许可证、资格和批准都可能会带来巨额成本，推迟或阻止业务活动的计划扩张，需要重大且代价高昂的运营变革，对我们的业务、产品和服务施加限制、限制或额外要求，或阻止我们在任何特定市场提供我们的产品或服务。此外，如果我们被发现违反此类许可、资格和批准的任何要求，我们可能会受到罚款、执行行动和诉讼。无法保证我们能够（或决定）继续在任何司法管辖区申请或获得任何此类许可、续签、资格和批准。
•与2021年初的交易限制有关，我们和我们的员工，包括我们的首席执行官弗拉基米尔·特内夫，收到了USAO、司法部、反垄断部门、SEC工作人员、FINRA、纽约总检察长办公室、其他州总检察长办公室和一些州证券监管机构的信息请求，在某些情况下还收到了传票和证词请求。此外，USAO还执行了相关搜查令，以获取Tenev先生的手机。我们收到了美国证券交易委员会审查部门和执行部门以及FINRA的询问，涉及2021年1月25日当周内员工交易受2021年初交易限制的一些证券，包括GameStop Corp.和AMC Entertainment Holdings，Inc.特别是在决定实施2021年初交易限制之后和2021年1月28日公开宣布2021年初交易限制之前，是否有任何员工进行了这些证券的交易。2025年1月10日，SEC执法部门书面通知我们，已结束对2021年初交易限制和任何同期员工交易问题的调查。2025年3月6日，我们解决了FINRA对2021年初交易限制和员工交易问题的调查。
我们依赖技术（包括互联网和移动服务）来开展大部分业务活动，并允许我们的客户在我们的平台上进行金融交易。我们的系统和运营，包括基于云的运营和灾难恢复运营、我们依赖执行某些关键功能的第三方的系统和运营，以及我们已经收购或未来可能寻求收购的公司的系统和运营，很容易受到自然灾害、电力和服务中断、中断或损失、计算机和电信故障、软件错误、网络安全攻击、计算机病毒、恶意软件、分布式拒绝服务攻击、垃圾邮件攻击、网络钓鱼或其他社会工程、勒索软件、安全漏洞、凭证填充、技术故障、漏洞、人为错误、恐怖主义、不当操作、未经授权的进入、数据丢失、故意不良行为和其他类似事件，我们过去也经历过此类破坏。例如，2025年10月20日，由于内部系统故障，Amazon Web Services（AWS）在US-EAST-1地区发生重大中断。这影响了我们的某些运营，导致服务不稳定和中断。此外，我们过去和未来可能特别容易受到任何此类内部技术故障的影响，因为我们严重依赖我们自己的自助清算平台、专有订单路由系统、数据平台和其他后台基础设施进行运营，任何此类故障都可能对我们的声誉、业务、财务状况和运营结果产生不利影响。
In light of events in 2022, cryptocurrency market risks were identified as a key risk to the Company and management has accordingly implemented certain measures, including enhanced monitoring for cryptocurrency markets (such as reducing net open position limits with liquidity partners through more frequent settlement; adding additional banking and liquidity partners; monitoring on-platform trading activity, coin deposits and withdrawals; and ongoing diligence for listings and banking relationships). The ERM team has also provided quarterly updates to the Safety Committee with respect to such risks and responses. In addition, RHC and RHEU maintain listing committees as described above.
In June 2025, we started offering leverage to customers of RHEU and Bitstamp Financial Services Ltd investing in crypto-asset perpetuals. By permitting customers to invest in crypto-asset perpetuals with the use of leverage, both our customers and we are subject to certain risks, especially during periods of extreme volatility in the crypto-asset markets.
In the U.S., any particular cryptocurrency’s status as a “security” and cryptocurrency transaction’s status as an “investment contract” is subject to a high degree of uncertainty and if we have not properly characterized one or more cryptocurrencies or cryptocurrency transactions, we might be subject to legal and regulatory scrutiny, investigations, fines, and other penalties.
We currently facilitate customer trades for certain cryptocurrencies that we have analyzed under applicable internal policies and procedures and, for cryptocurrencies supported on our RHC and Bitstamp
US platforms, that we believe are not securities under relevant U.S. federal and state securities laws. Determining whether any given cryptocurrency is a security is a highly complex, fact-specific analysis, which may change over time based on changes in the cryptocurrency and its related ecosystem and on legal and regulatory developments. Different parties may reach different conclusions about the outcome of this analysis based on the same facts. The SEC has stated that the security (or non-security) status of a given crypto asset depends on the facts and circumstances and must be analyzed appropriately in light of the asset’s characteristics, uses, and functions. The SEC, individual Commissioners and the SEC Staff have previously taken positions that certain cryptocurrencies are “securities” in the context of settled or litigated enforcement actions. Although the SEC has not historically provided advance confirmation on the status of any particular cryptocurrency as a security, on March 17, 2026, the SEC issued an interpretation clarifying how the federal securities laws apply to certain crypto assets and transactions involving crypto assets. In this interpretive release, the SEC classified crypto assets into five categories based on their characteristics, uses, and functions. “Digital commodities,” “digital collectibles” including “meme coins,” and “digital tools” are not themselves securities according to the SEC. By contrast, the SEC classified “digital securities” (commonly known as “tokenized” securities) as financial instruments enumerated in the definition of a “security.” In the interpretive release, the SEC also specifically identified the following examples of digital commodities: Aptos (APT); Avalanche (AVAX); Bitcoin (BTC); Bitcoin Cash (BCH); Cardano (ADA); Chainlink (LINK); Dogecoin (DOGE); Ether (ETH); Hedera (HBAR); Litecoin (LTC); Polkadot (DOT); Shiba Inu (SHIB); Solana (SOL); Stellar (XLM); Tezos (XTZ); and XRP (XRP). However, the SEC’s interpretation is not binding on any court or other agency. Additionally, Staff of the SEC’s Division of Corporation Finance published statements clarifying that the Division does not view the offers and sales of certain “stablecoins” and “meme coins” to constitute securities transactions. Moreover, SEC Staff have authored informal, non-binding “no-action” letters to the promoters of certain digital assets stating that the Staff would not recommend enforcement action to the SEC on the basis that transactions in such digital assets, as described to the Staff by their respective promoters, are securities transactions, including with respect to the issuance of tokens in connection with internet and energy decentralized physical infrastructure projects and a consumer finance rewards program. However, such statements and views are not official policy statements by the SEC and reflect only the SEC Staff’s and speakers’ views, which are not binding on the SEC or any court or other agency (including, for instance, the NYDFS, which published a consumer alert in January 2025 concerning meme coins that did not opine on whether meme coins constituted securities but warned consumers of the risks of such coins), may be withdrawn at any time without notice or comment by the SEC or its senior officials, cannot be generalized to any other cryptocurrency, and might evolve (including, for instance, recently enacted legislation provides guidelines for the regulation of stablecoins in the U.S., which may differ from the views set forth in the SEC Staff statement regarding stablecoins). Additionally, U.S. regulators have in the past expressed concerns about cryptocurrency platforms adding multiple new coins, some of which they may view as unregistered securities. Although our policies and procedures are intended to enable us to make risk-based assessments regarding the likelihood that a particular cryptocurrency could be deemed a security under applicable laws, including federal securities laws, our assessments are not definitive legal determinations as to whether a particular digital asset is a security under such laws. Accordingly, regardless of our conclusions, we could be subject to legal or regulatory action in the event the SEC, a state regulator, or a court were to assert or determine that a cryptocurrency supported by our RHC or Bitstamp US platforms is a “security” under U.S. law.
For example, in June 2023, the SEC charged Binance and, separately, Coinbase with operating their respective cryptocurrency trading platforms as unregistered national securities exchanges, brokers, and clearing agencies, and in doing so, the SEC alleged that certain cryptocurrencies supported on their respective platforms are securities. The charges also implicated Coinbase’s staking-as-a-service program and its non-custodial wallet. In November 2023, the SEC brought similar charges against Kraken, alleging that it operated as an unregistered securities exchange, brokerage and clearing agency. In February 2025, March 2025, and May 2025, each of Coinbase, Kraken, and Binance, respectively, entered into a court-approved joint stipulation with the SEC to dismiss each of the SEC’s lawsuits against such parties with prejudice. Several other cryptocurrency market participants, including us, have also announced that the SEC informed them that the SEC was terminating its investigation or enforcement action into their
firm. Also, in April 2025, the Office of the Deputy Attorney General issued a memorandum (the “April DOJ Memo”), setting out new enforcement priorities for digital asset-related investigations and prosecutions by the DOJ. The April DOJ Memo directed prosecutors not to “target virtual currency exchanges, mixing and tumbling services, and offline wallets for the acts of their end users or unwitting violations of regulations.” The April DOJ Memo explained that the DOJ will instead prioritize cases against individuals who cause financial harm to digital asset investors and consumers and/or use digital assets in furtherance of other criminal conduct. The decisions by regulators not to bring enforcement actions provide, and any other action, settlement, or related investigation by regulators, might provide, additional guidance on the legal status of cryptocurrencies as securities more generally, which has affected and might significantly affect the actual or perceived regulatory status and value of cryptocurrencies we currently support or might support in the future. On January 21, 2025, the SEC announced that then-Acting Chairman Mark Uyeda “launched a crypto task force dedicated to developing a comprehensive and clear regulatory framework for crypto assets.” The task force is focused on helping the SEC “draw clear regulatory lines, provide realistic paths to registration, craft sensible disclosure frameworks, and deploy enforcement resources judiciously.” The SEC formed the Crypto Task Force to provide clarity on the application of the federal securities laws to the crypto asset market and to recommend practical policy measures that aim to foster innovation and protect investors. Since its formation, the Crypto Task Force has accepted written submissions on various cryptocurrency-related topics from industry participants; hosted roundtables on topics relating to security status, trading, custody, tokenization, DeFi, and financial surveillance and privacy; and has held meetings with interested stakeholders. On July 31, 2025, SEC Chairman Paul Atkins announced the launch of “Project Crypto,” described as “a Commission-wide initiative to modernize the securities rules and regulations to enable America’s financial markets to move on-chain.” In connection with this initiative, Chairman Atkins indicated that he has asked the Crypto Task Force to develop proposals to implement recommendations in the July 30, 2025, President’s Working Group on Digital Asset Markets Report, as well as a potential innovation exemption. While these developments are positive, the Crypto Task Force’s work remains in the early stages, and no formal rulemaking or exemptions have been proposed or adopted to date. In addition, notwithstanding recent positive developments involving the SEC, DOJ, and other federal regulators, state regulators retain independent authority to enforce their own securities laws, which may differ from or be interpreted more expansively than federal law. As a result, a state regulator could determine that a particular digital asset, product, or service constitutes a security under state law, even if the SEC has elected not to pursue enforcement action, the SEC has provided informal guidance or assurances to the contrary, or the asset, product, or service is otherwise excluded from the definition of a security at the federal level. Moreover, private litigants may assert claims under federal or state securities laws based on similar theories, regardless of the positions taken by federal regulators.
From time to time, we have received with respect to our RHC platform, and might in the future receive, SEC inquiries regarding specific cryptocurrencies supported on our RHC or Bitstamp US platforms and added features. Since December 2022, we have received investigative subpoenas from the SEC regarding, among other topics, RHC’s supported cryptocurrencies, custody of cryptocurrencies, and platform operations. During our discussions with the SEC Staff in the fourth quarter of 2023, the Staff stated that they were considering whether to recommend that the SEC find that, certain cryptocurrencies supported by our RHC platform are securities. In the second quarter of 2024, we received a “Wells Notice” stating that the SEC Staff made a “preliminary determination” to recommend that the SEC file an enforcement action against RHC alleging violations of Sections 15(a) and 17A of the Exchange Act. On February 21, 2025, the SEC Division of Enforcement closed the investigation, advising RHC in writing that it had concluded its investigation and did not intend to move forward with recommending an enforcement action.
To the extent that the SEC or a court asserts or determines that any cryptocurrencies supported by our RHC or Bitstamp US platforms are securities, that assertion or determination could prevent us from continuing to facilitate trading of those cryptocurrencies (including ceasing support for such cryptocurrencies on our RHC or Bitstamp US platforms) or offering those services. It could also result in regulatory enforcement penalties and financial losses in the event that we have liability to our customers
and need to compensate them for any losses or damages. We could be subject to judicial or administrative sanctions, including disgorgement or penalties which could be material, for failing to offer or sell the cryptocurrency in compliance with securities registration requirements, or for acting as a securities broker or dealer, national securities exchange, clearing agency, or other regulated entity without appropriate registration. Such an action could result in injunctions and cease and desist orders, as well as civil monetary penalties, fines, and disgorgement, criminal liability, and reputational harm. Customers that traded such supported cryptocurrency through our RHC or Bitstamp US platforms and suffered trading losses might also seek to rescind transactions that we facilitated on the basis that they were conducted in violation of applicable law, which could subject us to significant liability and losses. We might also be required to cease facilitating transactions in the supported cryptocurrency, which could negatively impact our business, operating results, and financial condition. Further, if any supported cryptocurrency is deemed to be a security, it might have adverse consequences for such supported cryptocurrency. For instance, all transactions in such supported cryptocurrency would have to be registered with the SEC or other foreign authority, or conducted in accordance with an exemption from registration, which could severely limit its liquidity, usability, and transactability. Moreover, the networks on which such supported cryptocurrencies are used might be required to be regulated as securities intermediaries, and subject to applicable rules, which could effectively render the network impracticable for its existing purposes. In addition, our growth might be adversely affected if we are not able to expand our RHC platform to include additional cryptocurrencies that the SEC has determined to be securities or that we believe are likely to be determined to be securities.
We continue to analyze the cryptocurrencies supported on the RHC and Bitstamp US platforms under our Crypto Listing Frameworks and Bitstamp’s similar internal policies, respectively, on a periodic basis to ensure that they continue to meet the applicable internal requirements for continued support on the RHC and Bitstamp US platforms which include, among other factors, that we continue to believe they are not securities under relevant U.S. federal and state securities laws. We may make the determination to cease support for a cryptocurrency for any one or a variety of factors based on a totality of the circumstances under our Crypto Listing Frameworks and Bitstamp’s similar internal policies, as applicable. However, an assertion or determination by the SEC or a court that a cryptocurrency supported by our RHC or Bitstamp US platforms constitutes a security could also result in our determination that it is advisable to remove that cryptocurrency and others with similar characteristics to the cryptocurrency that was asserted or determined to be a security from our RHC or Bitstamp US platforms. If we proactively remove certain cryptocurrencies from our RHC or Bitstamp US platforms because the SEC, a state, or a court has asserted or determined they constitute securities or because they share similarities with such cryptocurrencies or otherwise do not meet our Crypto Listing Frameworks and Bitstamp’s similar internal policies, as applicable, it has and could in the future negatively impact customer sentiment and our business, operating results, and financial condition, especially to the extent that our competitors continue to support such cryptocurrency on their platforms.
In addition, in June 2025, we launched “Robinhood Stock Tokens” in certain jurisdictions in the EEA, which are designed to provide eligible customers in the EEA with exposure to certain U.S. exchange-listed stocks and ETPs. While we currently only offer Robinhood Stock Tokens in the EEA, because the assets underlying the tokens are certain U.S. stocks and ETPs, the SEC could assert jurisdiction over our Robinhood Stock Token offering and claim that transactions in our Robinhood Stock Tokens must be conducted in compliance with applicable federal laws and regulations. See “-Our introduction of Robinhood Stock Tokens and crypto-asset perpetual trading in the EEA may expose us to significant regulatory, litigation, contractual, operational, and reputational risks” for more information.
If the SEC, a state regulator or a private litigant alleges that staking services we offer in the U.S. involve unregistered offers and sales of securities or unregistered securities broker-dealer activity in violation of federal securities laws or applicable state laws or regulations, and the courts agree with such plaintiff, we may be required to cease our staking activities and may be subject to monetary penalties and other sanctions.
In June 2025, we announced that RHC will be offering crypto staking services to eligible customers in certain jurisdictions in the U.S. In several enforcement actions filed by the SEC under the prior administration, the SEC alleged that certain companies had offered staking services to retail customers for various digital assets as unregistered securities or acted as unregistered securities broker-dealers in facilitating offers or sales of third-party staking services in violation of the registration provisions of the Securities Act or the Exchange Act. For example, as described under “-Risks Related to Cryptocurrency Products and Services-In the U.S., any particular cryptocurrency’s status as a “security” and cryptocurrency transaction’s status as an “investment contract” is subject to a high degree of uncertainty and if we have not properly characterized one or more cryptocurrencies or cryptocurrency transactions, we might be subject to legal and regulatory scrutiny, investigations, fines, and other penalties,” in 2023 the SEC charged Kraken, Coinbase and Binance with offering and selling digital asset staking-as-a-service programs to retail customers as unregistered investment contract schemes in violation of the Securities Act. In June 2024, the SEC charged Consensys Software Inc. with acting as an underwriter of unregistered securities in violation of the Securities Act and as an unregistered broker in violation of the Exchange Act by marketing the Lido and Rocket Pool third-party liquid staking-as-a-service programs to retail customers through Consensys’ “Metamask Staking” platform. As noted above, the litigation against Binance, Coinbase, and Kraken has been dismissed, and the SEC filed a stipulation to dismiss its lawsuit against Consensys with prejudice in March 2025.
We believe that our staking services do not offer or sell any “securities” subject to the securities laws or SEC regulations. We also believe that the structure, terms, and other characteristics of the staking services offered by RHC generally align with those described in the SEC’s March 2026 interpretation clarifying how the federal securities laws apply to certain types of crypto assets and certain transactions involving crypto assets, wherein the SEC stated that protocol staking activities of the nature described therein do not involve the offer and sale of a security. However, the SEC’s interpretation is not binding on any court or other agency and there is no guarantee that the SEC will agree with our assessment of our staking services. Accordingly, we do not know if the SEC will agree with our interpretation of the applicable federal laws or regulations, or if we will be successful if we seek relief from the courts.
In addition, there is no guarantee that state regulators will agree with our interpretation of applicable state laws or regulations. For example, several state regulators have issued cease and desist orders to, or filed lawsuits against, Coinbase with respect to its staking services, alleging that Coinbase’s staking services constitute unregistered securities offerings under applicable state laws and regulations. While certain of the state regulators have since dismissed their lawsuits against Coinbase with respect to its staking services, not all state regulators have done so.
If the SEC, a state regulator, or a private litigant were to prevail on claims that our staking services offered in the U.S. violate the Securities Act, Exchange Act or applicable state laws and regulations, we may be subject to monetary penalties, liabilities, reputational harm, and may be required to cease offering these services.
Cryptocurrency laws, regulations, regulatory guidance, regulatory interpretations, and accounting standards are often difficult to interpret and are rapidly evolving in ways that are difficult to predict. Changes in these laws and regulations, or our failure to comply with them, could negatively impact cryptocurrency trading on our platforms.
Domestic and foreign regulators and governments are increasingly focused on the regulation of cryptocurrencies. In the U.S., cryptocurrencies are regulated by both federal and state authorities, depending on their use. For example, on October 13, 2023, California enacted the DFAL, which, upon effectiveness on July 1, 2026, will prohibit any person or entity from engaging in, or holding itself out as engaging in, digital financial asset business activity with or on behalf of a California resident (including businesses with a place of business in California) unless that person or entity (i) holds a license under the DFAL, (ii) has submitted a license application on or before July 1, 2026 and is awaiting approval or denial, or (iii) is exempt from licensure. Once licensed, a licensee must comply with requirements related to record maintenance, fee and risk disclosures, cybersecurity, customer protection, anti-fraud, and AML. We expect to apply for a license under the DFAL in connection with our cryptocurrency trading operations
in California. In addition, the NYDFS requires any person or entity engaging in virtual currency activity for third parties in or involving New York, excluding merchants and consumers, to obtain a license, commonly referred to as a “BitLicense”, from the NYDFS and to comply with AML, cybersecurity, consumer protection, and financial and reporting requirements, among others, or, alternatively, to be chartered under the New York Banking Law and be approved by the NYDFS to engage in virtual currency business activity. We will continue to monitor developments in state-level legislation, guidance, and regulations applicable to us. Cryptocurrency market disruptions and resulting governmental interventions are unpredictable, and may render cryptocurrencies, or certain cryptocurrency business activities, illegal. As regulation of cryptocurrencies continues to evolve, there is a substantial risk of inconsistent regulatory guidance among federal and state agencies and among state governments which, along with potential accounting and tax issues and other requirements relating to cryptocurrencies, could impede the growth of our cryptocurrency operations. Additionally, regulation in response to the climate impact of cryptocurrency mining could negatively impact cryptocurrency trading on our platforms.
The cryptocurrency accounting rules and regulations that we must comply with are complex and subject to interpretation by the FASB, the SEC, and various bodies that promulgate and interpret accounting principles. A change in these rules, regulations or interpretations could significantly impact our reported results of operations and financial condition, and could also affect the reporting of transactions completed before the announcement or effectiveness of a change. Further, there are limited precedents for the financial accounting treatment of cryptocurrency assets, including valuation and revenue recognition. While the staff of the SEC’s Division of Trading and Markets provided certain limited FAQ guidance on May 15, 2025 with respect to net capital considerations, no formal guidance has been provided by the FASB or the SEC. Accordingly, there remains significant uncertainty regarding the appropriate accounting for cryptocurrency asset transactions, cryptocurrency assets, and related revenues. Uncertainties in, or changes to regulatory or financial accounting standards could require us to change our accounting methods or restate our financial statements, and could impair our ability to provide timely and accurate financial information, which could adversely affect our financial statements, and result in a loss of investor confidence.
In addition, future regulatory actions or policies, including, the assertion of jurisdiction by domestic and foreign regulators and governments over cryptocurrency and cryptocurrency markets could limit or restrict cryptocurrency usage, custody, or trading, or the ability to convert cryptocurrencies to fiat currencies. This includes recent legislative actions related to the RFIA, CLARITY Act, and GENIUS Act. See “-Risks Related to Regulation and Litigation-Our business is subject to extensive, complex, and changing laws and regulations, and related regulatory proceedings and investigations. Changes in these laws and regulations, or our failure to comply with these laws and regulations, could harm our business.” Additionally, some lawmakers and regulators have raised questions about Transaction Rebates from cryptocurrency trading. Transaction Rebates from cryptocurrency trading have historically comprised, and might continue to comprise, a significant percentage of our total net revenues. The current presidential administration and the control of Congress also present considerable uncertainty regarding such regulatory actions or policies. Any future regulatory actions or policies could reduce demand for cryptocurrency trading and might materially decrease our revenue derived from Transaction Rebates in absolute terms and as a proportion of our total revenues.
The legal framework governing the characterization of cryptocurrencies held “in custody,” including whether and how such assets are treated as customer property versus property of an insolvency estate, remains evolving and may differ by jurisdiction and by product structure, contractual terms, and operational facts. In certain prior bankruptcy proceedings, cryptocurrencies held in custody on behalf of customers have become subject to the claims of creditors, the automatic stay, court-supervised distribution processes, or other restrictions, and customers have been treated as general unsecured creditors with respect to some or all of their cryptocurrency entitlements. However, based on the terms of our user agreement, the structure of our crypto offerings, and applicable law, and, although we have not obtained a formal legal opinion on this matter, after consultation with internal and external legal counsel, we believe that the cryptocurrency we hold in custody for users of our platforms should be respected as
users’ property (and should not be available to satisfy the claims of our general creditors) in the event we were to enter bankruptcy. Although we are well-capitalized, to the extent users are concerned that cryptocurrencies might not be secure in a bankruptcy generally, their willingness to hold crypto in custodial accounts and their general interest in trading cryptocurrencies might decline.
The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act significantly changes the tax reporting requirements applicable to brokers and holders of cryptocurrency and digital assets. On August 25, 2023, the U.S. Department of the Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service released proposed regulations on the sale and exchange of digital assets by brokers. On June 28, 2024, final regulations that require information reporting by digital asset brokers on certain digital asset sales or exchanges that occur on or after January 1, 2025, and basis tracking for digital assets that are treated as “covered securities” if acquired on or after January 1, 2026 implementing these requirements, and any further legislative changes or related guidance from the Internal Revenue Service and the U.S. Department of the Treasury, might significantly impact our tax reporting and withholding processes and result in increased compliance costs. Failure to comply with these new information reporting and withholding requirements might subject us to significant tax liabilities and penalties. Similarly, the OECD has published final guidance on a new “crypto-asset reporting framework” and amendments to the existing global “common reporting standard” that might apply to our international operations. These new rules might give rise to potential liabilities or disclosure requirements, and implementation may have a significant impact on our operations and result in increased costs.
Our continued efforts to expand our business internationally also subject us to additional laws, regulations, and other governmental or regulatory scrutiny as discussed in “-Risks Related to Our Business-We currently operate in certain international markets and plan to further expand our international operations, which exposes us to significant new risks, and our international expansion efforts might not succeed” and “-Risks Related to Regulation and Litigation-Our business is subject to extensive, complex and changing laws and regulations, and related regulatory proceedings and investigations. Changes in these laws and regulations, or our failure to comply with these laws and regulations, could harm our business.” Various foreign jurisdictions have adopted, and may continue to adopt laws, regulations or directives that affect crypto-asset industry participants, the crypto-asset markets, and their users, particularly trading platforms and service providers that fall within such jurisdictions’ regulatory scope. For example, the provisions of MiCA went into effect as of December 30, 2024, and the FCA announced new proposals for certain aspects of the prudential requirements for crypto firms. See “Risks Related to Our Business- We might need additional capital to provide liquidity and support business growth and objectives, and this capital might not be available to us on reasonable terms, if at all, might result in stockholder dilution, or might be delayed or prohibited by applicable regulations” for more information. Accordingly, in addition to the licenses RHEU and Bitstamp Financial Services Ltd. obtained under MiFID, RHEU and Bitstamp Europe S.A. have obtained licenses to operate as crypto asset service providers under MiCA. As noted above, monitoring and maintaining our compliance with the laws and regulations to which we are subject is complex and requires significant resources. Any failure to comply with applicable laws and regulations could result in regulatory fines, suspensions of personnel or other sanctions, including revocation of our registration or that of our subsidiaries, which could, among other things, require changes to our business practices and scope of operations or harm our reputation, and, in turn could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition or business. New laws or regulations, or new interpretations of existing laws or regulations, could have a materially adverse impact on our ability to operate as currently intended, or require us to obtain additional or newly created registrations or licenses and incur significant expense in order to ensure compliance. Additionally, under recommendations from FinCEN, and the Financial Action Task Force, the United States and several international jurisdictions in which RHEU or Bitstamp operate have imposed the Funds Travel Rule and the Funds Transfer Rule (collectively the “Travel Rule”) on financial service providers in the cryptoeconomy. We may incur high costs to implement and comply with the Travel Rule, could face penalties for technical violations, and could lose customers if compliance negatively affects customer service experience.
Our Crypto Transfers, crypto staking and lending, Robinhood Wallet, and Robinhood Connect features could result in loss of customer assets, customer disputes, and other liabilities, which could harm our reputation and adversely impact trading volumes and transaction-based revenues.
In the U.S., we allow customers to deposit and withdraw cryptocurrencies to and from our RHC and Bitstamp platforms through our Crypto Transfers feature in the states in which RHC or Bitstamp operates. We also allow customers of RHEU to deposit and withdraw crypto to and from our RHEU platform. Bitstamp also allows its customers to deposit and withdraw crypto to and from the Bitstamp platform. Crypto Transfers are processed using Robinhood’s or Bitstamp’s general custodial infrastructure in which we hold some cryptocurrencies on behalf of customers; when transactions are completed, coins are allocated to and from individuals’ accounts in our customer records. Additionally, RHC U.S. customers have access to Robinhood Connect, allowing their customers to use their RHC accounts to buy and transfer crypto, and fund their self-custody wallets.
Crypto Transfers initiated by users are subject to a heightened risk of user error. Under blockchain protocol, recording a transfer of cryptocurrency on the blockchain involves both the private key of the sending wallet and the unique public key of the receiving wallet. Such keys are strings of alphanumeric characters. For a customer to receive cryptocurrency on our platforms, the customer needs to arrange for the owner of an external source wallet to “sign” a transaction with the private key of that external wallet, directing a transfer of the cryptocurrency to our receiving custodial wallet by inputting the public key (which we provide to the customer) of our custodial wallet. Similarly, in order to withdraw cryptocurrency from our platforms, the customer needs to provide us with the public key of the external wallet to which the cryptocurrency is to be transferred, and we “sign” the transaction using the private key of our wallet. Some crypto networks might require additional information to be provided in connection with any transfer of cryptocurrency to or from our platforms. A number of errors could occur in the process of depositing or withdrawing cryptocurrencies to or from our platforms, such as typos, mistakes, or the failure to include information required by the blockchain network. For instance, a user might include typos when entering our custodial wallet’s public key or the desired recipient’s public key when depositing to and withdrawing from our platforms, respectively. Alternatively, a user could mistakenly transfer cryptocurrencies to a wallet address that he or she does not own or control, or for which the user has lost the private key. In addition, each wallet address is compatible only with the underlying blockchain network on which it is created. For instance, a Bitcoin wallet address can be used to send and receive Bitcoin only. If any Ethereum, Dogecoin, or other cryptocurrency is sent to a Bitcoin wallet address, for example, or if any of the other foregoing errors occur, such cryptocurrencies could be permanently and irretrievably lost with no means of recovery.
We also provide crypto staking services through our RHC, RHEU and Bitstamp platforms in which eligible customers of RHC, RHEU and Bitstamp are given the option to “stake” eligible crypto-assets. Staking allows customers to earn rewards by locking up the cryptocurrencies, subject to the network and cryptocurrency’s requirements and bonding periods, and so limits customers’ access to their funds during such time. Once a customer chooses to opt in to our staking services, we delegate the amount of crypto-assets identified by such customer for staking to a validator operated by either (i) RHC, RHEU or Bitstamp, as applicable, or (ii) a third-party service provider we engage in connection with such services. Some networks may further require customer assets to be transferred into smart contracts on the underlying blockchain networks not under our or anyone’s control. If our third-party service provider or any such smart contracts fail to behave as expected, suffer cybersecurity attacks, experience security issues, or encounter other problems, customers’ assets may be irretrievably lost. In addition, certain blockchain networks dictate requirements for participation in the relevant decentralized governance activity, and may impose penalties, or “slashing,” if the relevant activities are not performed correctly, such as if the staker, delegator, or baker acts maliciously on the network, “double signs” any transactions, or experiences extended downtimes. If we or our third-party service provider is slashed by the underlying blockchain network, customers’ assets may be confiscated, withdrawn, or burnt by the network, resulting in losses for which we may be responsible. Furthermore, certain types of staking require the payment of transaction fees on the underlying blockchain network, and such fees can become significant as the amount and complexity of the transaction grows, depending on the degree of network congestion and the
price of the network token. If we experience a high volume of such staking requests from customers on an ongoing basis, we could incur significant costs.
Bitstamp Europe S.A., Bitstamp Limited and Bitstamp Global Limited market crypto-asset lending services which are provided directly to customers by a third-party service provider. Customers lend their crypto-assets directly to a third party and the third party then on-lends to borrowers. Customer crypto-assets leave the custody of Bitstamp when customers access these services. There is a risk that borrowers may default on loans by the third-party service provider causing a financial loss to customers and in a worst case scenario the insolvency of the third-party service provider or its related group companies. Any of these risks could negatively impact our reputation, business, financial condition, and results of operations and discourage existing and future customers from utilizing our products and services.
With Robinhood Wallet, our self-custody, web3 wallet, users have sole access and control over their cryptocurrencies on certain networks and personally hold and maintain their private keys. Although we do not custody cryptocurrencies held in a user’s Robinhood Wallet and do not have access to users’ private keys, users who lose their private keys, and thus access to their Robinhood Wallet balances, may react negatively. Although our account agreements for Crypto Transfers and licensing agreements for Robinhood Wallet disclaim responsibility for losses caused by user errors, such incidents could result in user disputes, damage to our brand and reputation, legal claims against us, and financial liabilities.
Additionally, allowing customers to deposit and withdraw cryptocurrencies to and from our platforms increases the risk that our platforms might be exploited to facilitate illegal activity such as fraud, gambling, money laundering, tax evasion, and scams. Crypto Transfers, Robinhood Wallet, and Robinhood Connect also expose us to heightened risks related to potential violations of trade sanctions, including OFAC regulations, and AML and counter-terrorist financing laws, which among other things impose strict liability for transacting with prohibited persons. We engage blockchain analytics vendors to help determine whether the external wallets involved in Crypto Transfers are controlled by persons on prohibited lists or involved in fraudulent or illegal activity. However, fraudulent and illegal transactions and prohibited status could be difficult or impossible for us and our vendors to detect in some circumstances. The use of our platforms for illegal or improper purposes could subject us to claims, individual and class action lawsuits, and government and regulatory investigations, prosecutions, enforcement actions, inquiries, or requests that could result in significant liabilities and reputational harm for us and could cause cryptocurrency trading volumes and transaction-based revenues to decline.
A temporary or permanent blockchain “fork” could adversely affect our business.
Most blockchain protocols, including Bitcoin and Ethereum, are open source. Any user can download the software, modify it and then propose that users and miners of Bitcoin, Ethereum or other blockchain protocols adopt the modification. When a modification is introduced and a substantial majority of miners consent to the modification, the change is implemented and the Bitcoin, Ethereum or other blockchain protocol networks, as applicable, remain uninterrupted, although such modifications might cause certain cryptocurrencies to fail our Crypto Listing Frameworks. However, if less than a substantial majority of users and miners consent to the proposed modification, and the modification is not compatible with the software prior to its modification, the consequence would be what is known as a “fork” (i.e., “split”) of impacted blockchain protocol network and respective blockchain with one prong running the pre-modified software and the other running the modified software. The effect of such a fork would be the existence of two versions of the Bitcoin, Ethereum or other blockchain protocol network, as applicable, running simultaneously, but with each split network’s cryptocurrency lacking interchangeability.
Both Bitcoin and Ethereum protocols have been subject to “forks” that resulted in the creation of new networks, including, among others, Bitcoin Cash, BSV, Bitcoin Diamond, Bitcoin Gold, Ethereum Classic, and Ethereum Proof-of-Work. Some of these forks have caused fragmentation among platforms as to the correct naming convention for forked cryptocurrencies. Due to the lack of a central registry or rulemaking body in the cryptocurrency market, no single entity has the ability to dictate the nomenclature of forked cryptocurrencies, causing disagreements and a lack of uniformity among platforms on the nomenclature of forked cryptocurrencies, and which results in further confusion to customers as to the nature of
cryptocurrencies they hold on platforms. In addition, several of these forks were contentious and as a result, participants in certain communities might harbor ill will towards other communities. As a result, certain community members might take actions that adversely impact the use, adoption and price of Bitcoin, Ethereum or any of their forked alternatives.
Furthermore, forks can lead to disruptions of networks and our information technology systems, cybersecurity attacks, replay attacks, or security weaknesses, any of which can further lead to temporary or even permanent loss of customer cryptocurrencies. For instance, when the Ethereum and Ethereum Classic networks split in July 2016, replay attacks, in which transactions from one network were rebroadcast on the other network to achieve “double-spending,” plagued platforms that traded Ethereum through at least October 2016, resulting in significant losses to some cryptocurrency platforms. Another possible result of a fork is an inherent decrease in the level of security due to the splitting of some mining power across networks, making it easier for a malicious actor to gain the majority of the mining power of that network. Such disruption and loss could cause our company to be exposed to liability, even in circumstances where we have no intention of supporting a cryptocurrency compromised by a fork.
Moreover, we might decide not to or not be able to support a cryptocurrency resulting from the fork of a network which might cause our customers to lose confidence in us or reduce their engagement on our platforms. In assessing whether we will support a cryptocurrency resulting from the fork of a network, among our top priorities is to safeguard our customers’ assets, and we spend extensive time designing, building, testing, reviewing and auditing our systems to check whether the cryptocurrencies we support remain safe and secure. There are several considerations that we consider as part of our Crypto Listing Frameworks (including security or infrastructure concerns that might arise with the integration of any new cryptocurrency into the technical infrastructure that allows us to secure customer cryptocurrencies and to transact securely in corresponding blockchains), which might operate to limit our ability to support forks. Further, we generally do not support a forked cryptocurrency that does not have support from a majority of the affiliated third-party miner and developer community. To the extent that we decide not to support, or to cease support of, certain forked cryptocurrencies, it could negatively impact customer sentiment and our business, operating results, and financial condition, especially to the extent that our competitors continue to support such forked cryptocurrencies on their platforms.
Whether we are obligated to provide services for a new and previously unsupported cryptocurrency is a question of contract, as recognized in recent published rulings of the California appellate courts and federal district courts. The user agreement each customer enters into in order to trade cryptocurrencies on our platforms clearly indicates that we have the sole discretion to determine whether we will support a forked network and the approach to such forked cryptocurrencies and that we may temporarily suspend trading for a cryptocurrency whose network is undergoing a fork without advance notice to the customer. Regardless of the foregoing, we might in the future be subject to claims by customers arguing that they are entitled to receive certain forked cryptocurrencies by virtue of cryptocurrencies that they hold with us. If any customers succeed on a claim that they are entitled to receive the benefits of a forked cryptocurrency that we do not or are unable to support, we might be required to pay significant damages, fines or other fees to compensate customers for their losses.
Any inability to maintain adequate relationships with third-party banks, Liquidity Providers, and cryptocurrency exchanges with respect to, and any inability to settle customer trades related to, our cryptocurrency offerings, would disrupt our ability to offer cryptocurrency trading to customers.
We rely heavily on third-party banks, Liquidity Providers, and cryptocurrency exchanges in connection with our provision of cryptocurrency products and services to our customers, with the exception of a cryptocurrency exchange operated by Bitstamp and acquired by Robinhood in June 2025. The cryptocurrency market operates 24 hours a day, seven days a week. The cryptocurrency market does not have a centralized clearinghouse, and the transactions in cryptocurrencies on our platforms rely on direct settlements between us and our customers and direct settlements between us and our Liquidity Providers or cryptocurrency exchanges after customer trades are executed. Accordingly, we rely on third-party banks to facilitate cash settlements with customers’ brokerage accounts, and we rely on the ability of Liquidity Providers and Bitstamp, where applicable, to complete cryptocurrency settlements with us to
obtain cryptocurrency for customer accounts. In addition, we must maintain cash assets in our bank accounts sufficient to meet the working capital needs of our business, which includes deploying available working capital to facilitate cash settlements with our customers, Liquidity Providers and cryptocurrency exchanges (as well as maintaining the minimum capital required by regulators). If we, third-party banks, Liquidity Providers, or cryptocurrency exchanges have operational failures and cannot perform and facilitate our routine cash and cryptocurrency settlement transactions, we will be unable to support normal trading operations on our cryptocurrency trading platforms, and these disruptions could have an adverse impact on our business, financial condition and results of operations. Similarly, if we fail to maintain cash assets in our bank accounts sufficient to meet the working capital needs of our business and necessary to complete routine cash settlements related to customer trading activity, such failure could impair our ability to support normal trading operations on our cryptocurrency platforms, which could cause cryptocurrency trading volumes and transaction-based revenues to decline significantly.
We might also be harmed by the loss of any of our banking partners and Liquidity Providers. As a result of the risks of cryptocurrencies generally, many financial institutions have decided, and other financial institutions might in the future decide, not to provide bank accounts (or access to bank accounts), payments services, or other financial services to companies providing cryptocurrency products, including us. For instance, in May 2023, two prominent Liquidity Providers announced their respective decisions to limit their offerings in cryptocurrency trading within the U.S. If we, our cryptocurrency exchanges or our Liquidity Providers cannot maintain sufficient relationships with the banks that provide these services, if banking regulators restrict or prohibit banking of cryptocurrency businesses, if these banks impose significant operational restrictions, or if these banks were to fail or be taken over by the FDIC, such as occurred in the 2023 Banking Events, it could be difficult for us to find alternative business partners for our cryptocurrency offerings, which would disrupt our business and could cause cryptocurrency trading volumes and transaction-based revenues to decline significantly.
We might also be harmed by the loss of any of our liquidity partners. Unlike our customers’ orders for other cryptocurrencies, which are currently fulfilled by Liquidity Providers, our RHC customers’ orders for USDC, a stablecoin backed by dollar denominated assets held by the issuer in segregated accounts with U.S. regulated financial institutions, are fulfilled directly from Circle, the original issuer and main liquidity provider of USDC. If in the future we decide to offer other stablecoins, which are cryptocurrencies designed to minimize price volatility, we may also work directly with other liquidity partners to fulfill those orders. If we cannot maintain sufficient relationships with Circle or any other Liquidity Providers, it could be difficult for us to find alternative liquidity partners for our stablecoin offerings, which would disrupt our business and could cause cryptocurrency trading volumes and transaction-based revenues to decline significantly.
From time to time, we might encounter technical issues in connection with changes and upgrades to the underlying networks of supported cryptocurrencies, which could cause revenues to decline and expose us to potential liability for customer losses.
Any number of technical changes, software upgrades, soft or hard forks, cybersecurity incidents or other changes to the underlying blockchain networks might occur from time to time, causing incompatibility, technical issues, disruptions or security weaknesses to our platforms. If we are unable to identify, troubleshoot and resolve any such issues successfully, we might no longer be able to support such cryptocurrency, our customers’ assets might be frozen or lost, the security of our hot or cold wallets might be compromised and our platforms and technical infrastructure might be affected, all of which could cause trading volumes and transaction-based revenue to decline and expose us to potential liability for customer losses.
Our introduction of Robinhood Stock Tokens and crypto-asset perpetual trading in the EEA may expose us to significant regulatory, litigation, contractual, operational, and reputational risks.
In June 2025, we launched Robinhood Stock Tokens for eligible customers in certain EEA jurisdictions. These products are designed to provide economic exposure to the price performance of certain U.S. stocks issued by publicly-listed U.S. companies and certain U.S. ETPs, without conveying legal ownership or shareholder rights, such as voting rights, related to such underlying stocks and ETPs.
From time to time, we have offered, and may offer, token products that reference privately-held U.S. companies in connection with certain limited promotional initiatives in certain EEA jurisdictions (the “Private Company Stock Token Promotion”). Such tokens and Robinhood Stock Tokens do not represent, or entitle the holder to receive or convert into, actual securities of the referenced companies, and the value of the tokens is based on a defined reference price such as the market price of those securities or the price of those securities upon a liquidity event.
The cryptocurrency industry is rapidly evolving, and the tokenization of real-world assets is a nascent development in the industry. Accordingly, there remains considerable regulatory uncertainty regarding how transactions, products, services or offerings involving tokenized real-world assets, including tokenized financial instruments, are or should be regulated. While certain lawmakers, regulators and other public officials in the U.S. and in foreign jurisdictions have previously made statements or issued guidance relating to the legal and regulatory framework applicable to tokenized real-world assets, the legal and regulatory framework is still in the early stages, is continuing to evolve rapidly and remains uncertain and fragmented across jurisdictions. For example, in July 2025, SEC Commissioner Hester M. Peirce issued a statement noting that tokenized securities are still securities, and therefore transactions involving tokenized securities are subject to federal securities laws. Advisory committees and staff of the CFTC have also discussed exploring a potential regulatory framework for tokenization of assets, including tokenized collateral.
Regulatory approaches to tokenized real-world assets outside of the U.S. are similarly in the early stages and vary by jurisdiction. For example, in the EU, MiCA and MiFID operate as complementary regimes within the EU’s financial regulatory framework, with MiCA governing crypto-assets that do not qualify as financial instruments and MiFID continuing to apply to crypto-assets that meet the definition of financial instruments. Accordingly, the application of MiCA or MiFID depends on the characteristics of the specific tokenized real-world asset. In Singapore, the MAS has issued guidance stating that a crypto-asset may constitute, among other things, a “share” where it confers or represents ownership interest in a corporation or a “securities-based derivatives contract” where the underlying asset is a share, debenture or unit in a business, which would require transactions in such crypto-assets to be conducted in compliance with applicable law and the applicable licenses.
We have offered Robinhood Stock Tokens and the Private Company Stock Token Promotion to eligible customers of RHEU in certain jurisdictions in the EEA and may offer similar tokens or promotions in the same or different jurisdictions in the future, and while we believe that such operations are, were, and will be in compliance with MiFID requirements applicable to derivatives (or other applicable requirements to the extent we offer similar tokens or promotions in different jurisdictions in the future), we cannot ensure that regulators would agree with our conclusions. For example, we have received requests for clarifications from the Bank of Lithuania, which has issued RHEU licenses under MiCA and MiFID, regarding our Robinhood Stock Tokens and the Private Company Stock Token Promotion in connection with the launch of that offering. Responding to such requests may divert management attention and require us to expend additional resources. If the Bank of Lithuania determines that our Robinhood Stock Token offering or the Private Company Stock Token Promotion is not being conducted in compliance with applicable laws or regulations, such determination could result in financial penalties or other non-monetary penalties, limitation of certain of our business activities (including with respect to our Robinhood Stock Token offering), loss or non-renewal of existing licenses or authorizations, increased scrutiny from other regulators, loss of our customers and reputational harm. In addition, any change in applicable laws or regulations, or change in interpretations of existing laws or regulations, could have a materially adverse impact on our ability to operate our Robinhood Stock Token offering as currently intended. In addition, because the assets underlying our Robinhood Stock Tokens and the Private Company Stock Token Promotion are certain U.S. securities, the SEC or other U.S. regulators, including the CFTC, could assert jurisdiction over our Robinhood Stock Token offering or the Private Company Stock Token Promotion and claim that transactions in related tokens must be conducted in compliance with applicable U.S. laws and regulations. Such a determination could result in lawsuits, regulatory action and enforcement proceedings that result in injunctions, fines, penalties and other monetary damages, and could require us to obtain additional registrations or licenses in the future and cause us to incur significant expenses in order to ensure compliance with applicable laws and regulations.
We may also face contractual or legal challenges from the issuers of the referenced securities. Some companies, particularly private companies with transfer restrictions, may object to the creation of synthetic instruments such as tokens which reference the companies’ securities and are facilitated by Robinhood or one of its affiliates holding an interest in a SPV that holds the referenced securities or instruments representing a contingent interest in the referenced securities. In such cases, the issuer may assert that our interest in the SPV is invalid, void or otherwise unenforceable, or that we have violated or induced or assisted in the violation of, applicable transfer restrictions, which could result in a loss or impairment of the SPV’s rights to the underlying securities, which could in turn prevent us from effectively hedging our exposure to the associated tokens held by our customers. For example, OpenAI has publicly stated that OpenAI tokens issued in connection with the Private Company Stock Token Promotion are not OpenAI equity, that they did not partner with us and did not endorse the OpenAI tokens, and that any transfer of OpenAI equity requires OpenAI’s approval and OpenAI did not approve such transfer. Accordingly, Robinhood or our affiliates may be exposed to risks relating to litigation, reputational harm, or the need to suspend or revise affected offerings.
The Robinhood Stock Token offering and the Private Company Stock Token Promotion also involved, and could involve, operational risks, in addition to existing cryptocurrency risks. They have relied on, and could rely on, accurate and timely price data, functioning systems for custody and valuation, and clear communication to customers about how the tokens work. If these systems fail, or if customers misunderstand that the tokens don’t represent actual securities, we could face regulatory action, legal exposure, or reputational harm.
If we are unable to adequately manage these risks, or if regulators, issuers, or other counterparties take adverse action, our Robinhood Stock Token or similar initiatives in the future could be curtailed or terminated, which could adversely affect our crypto and international business operations, expose us to significant liability and harm our brand.
Risks Related to Our Spending and Payments Products and Services
Our spending, payments and banking products and services subject us to risks related to bank partnerships, FDIC pass-through insurance and other regulatory obligations.
We offered a Spending Account (in connection with a partnership with J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.), and partnered, on a non-exclusive basis, with Sutton Bank (“Sutton”), an Ohio-chartered bank, pursuant to a license from Mastercard International Incorporated, to offer the Robinhood Cash Card. Under the terms of our program agreement with Sutton, Robinhood Cash Card accounts for our users were opened and maintained by Sutton. We act as the service provider to, among other things, facilitate communication between our users and Sutton for which we receive compensation from Sutton. We began winding down the Spending Account product in 2025 by closing inactive, unfunded accounts. The product is expected to be fully wound down by the third quarter of 2026. We recently began (on an invite-only basis) offering external customers the Robinhood Banking product, which offers depository accounts and related banking services through our partner bank, Coastal Bank. Similar to the structure of the Spending Account program, we act as the service provider for Robinhood Banking to, among other things, facilitate communication between our users and Coastal Bank for which we receive compensation. Additionally, Robinhood branded credit cards are issued by Coastal Bank, a Washington-chartered bank, pursuant to a partnership with Visa U.S.A. Inc. Our partner banks are members of the FDIC.
We believe our record keeping for our users’ funds held in Robinhood Cash Card accounts at Sutton, held in a Spending Account at our other partner bank, and held in Robinhood Banking branded deposit accounts at Coastal Bank complies with all applicable requirements for each participating user’s deposits to be eligible for FDIC pass-through insurance coverage, up to the applicable maximum deposit insurance amount. However, if the FDIC were to disagree, the FDIC might not recognize users’ claims as covered by deposit insurance in the event of bank failure and bank receivership proceedings under the Federal Deposit Insurance Act. If the FDIC were to determine that our users’ funds held at our partner banks are not covered by deposit insurance, participating users might decide to withdraw their funds, which could adversely affect our brand and our business. Due to the fact that we are deemed a service-provider to our
partner banks, we are subject to audit standards for third-party vendors in accordance with bank regulatory guidance and examinations by federal bank regulatory authorities and the CFPB.
As a result of the stored value Spending Account program, the Robinhood Cash Card and the Robinhood Banking program, we are subject to federal and state consumer protection laws and regulations, including the Electronic Fund Transfer Act and Regulation E as implemented by the CFPB. As a result of Robinhood Credit, we are also subject to a number of state licensing and other regulatory requirements and to payment card association operating rules, including data security rules and certification requirements, which could change or be reinterpreted to make it difficult or impossible for us to comply. Robinhood Credit is in the process of acquiring licenses in all states where required to do so. Failure to obtain or maintain these licenses, failure to comply with these rules or requirements, or conducting such activity without a license, as well as any breach, compromise, or failure to otherwise detect or prevent fraudulent activity involving our data security systems, could result in our being liable for card issuing banks’ costs, and subject to regulatory fines, penalties, or criminal charges. For example, in December 2024, Robinhood Credit paid a penalty of $200,000 to the Massachusetts Division of Banks for previously engaging in the business of a third party loan servicer in Massachusetts without the appropriate registration. Violations of any of these requirements could result in the assessment of significant actual damages or statutory damages or penalties (including treble damages in some instances) and plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees.
The offering of consumer credit cards through Robinhood Credit increases our exposure to customer defaults and credit risk and could result in losses.
We market consumer credit cards, such as the Robinhood Gold Card, originated by our partner bank, Coastal Bank, pursuant to the Program Agreement, and indemnify Coastal Bank for certain losses under the Program Agreement. We partner with Coastal Bank to develop proprietary scoring models and other analytical techniques that are designed to set terms and credit limits to appropriately compensate for credit risk in connection with selecting customers, managing accounts and establishing terms and credit limits. The revenue generated from the Program Agreement and the extent of credit losses incurred, as well as our ability to offer competitive features such as the Robinhood Gold Card Rewards Program, depends in part on managing credit risk while attracting new customers with profitable usage patterns. The models and approaches used to manage credit risk may not accurately predict future charge-offs and our ability to avoid high charge-off rates also may be adversely affected by general economic conditions including unemployment, the availability of consumer credit and the competitive environment, as well as events that may be difficult to predict, such as a general downturn in economic conditions (like the one that occurred in 2022), public health threats (like the COVID-19 pandemic), or political developments and legislative proposals targeting interest rate caps and fee and revenue restrictions. Additionally, if any of these factors make it economically unfeasible for us to continue to offer the Robinhood Gold Card Rewards Program and we cease to offer such rewards, it might make Robinhood Credit products less desirable to customers. Any material increases in credit losses and defaults or inability to retain existing or attract new Robinhood Credit customers could have adverse effects on our financial condition and results of operations.
Use of our spending, payments, banking and other services for illegal activities or improper purposes could harm our business.
The highly automated nature of, and liquidity offered by, our spending, payments and other services to move money make us and our customers a target for illegal or improper uses, including scams and fraud directed at our stored value Spending Account, Robinhood Cash Card, Robinhood Banking accounts (including the cash delivery feature, which allows customers in supported jurisdictions to order cash directly to their residences), and Robinhood Credit customers, fraud in connection with the services we provide to the U.S. government, money laundering, terrorist financing, sanctions evasion, illegal online gambling, fraudulent sales of goods or services, illegal telemarketing activities, illegal sales of prescription medications or controlled substances, piracy of software, movies, music, and other copyrighted or trademarked goods (in particular, digital goods), bank fraud, child pornography, human trafficking, prohibited sales of alcoholic beverages or tobacco products, securities fraud, pyramid or ponzi schemes, or the facilitation of other illegal or improper activity. Moreover, certain activity that is legal in one
jurisdiction might be illegal in another jurisdiction, and a customer might be found responsible for intentionally or inadvertently importing or exporting illegal goods, resulting in liability for us. Owners of intellectual property rights or government authorities might seek to bring legal action against providers of payments solutions, including Robinhood, that are peripherally involved in the sale of infringing or allegedly infringing items. While we invest in measures intended to prevent and detect illegal activities with respect to our spending, payments, and other services, these measures require continuous improvement and might not be effective in detecting and preventing illegal activity or improper uses.
Any illegal or improper uses of our spending, payments, and other services by our users might subject us to claims, individual and class action lawsuits, and government and regulatory requests, inquiries, or investigations that could result in liability, restrict our operations, require us to change our business practices, harm our reputation, increase our costs, and negatively impact our business. For example, government enforcement or regulatory authorities could seek to impose additional restrictions or liability on us arising from the use of our spending, payments, and other services for illegal or improper activity, and our failure to detect or prevent such use. Illegitimate transactions can also prevent us from satisfying our contractual obligations to our third-party partners, which might cause us to be in breach of our obligations.
Risks Related to Our Intellectual Property
Any failure to obtain, maintain, protect, defend or enforce our intellectual property rights could adversely affect our business.
Our success and ability to compete depend in part upon our ability to obtain, maintain, protect, defend and enforce our intellectual property rights and technology. The steps we take to protect our intellectual property rights might not be sufficient to effectively prevent third parties from infringing, misappropriating, diluting, or otherwise violating our intellectual property rights or to prevent unauthorized disclosure or unauthorized use of our trade secrets or other confidential information. We make business decisions about when to seek patent protection for a particular technology, obtain trademark or copyright protection and when to rely upon trade secret protection, and the approach we select might ultimately prove to be inadequate. We will not be able to protect our intellectual property rights, however, if we do not detect unauthorized use of our intellectual property rights. We also might fail to maintain or be unable to obtain adequate protections for some of our intellectual property rights in the U.S. and some non-U.S. countries, and our intellectual property rights might not receive the same degree of protection in non-U.S. countries as they would in the U.S. because of the differences in non-U.S. patent, trademark, copyright, and other laws concerning intellectual property and proprietary rights. In addition, if we do not adequately protect our rights in our trademarks from infringement and unauthorized use, any goodwill that we have developed in those trademarks could be lost or impaired, which could harm our brand and our business. Our trademarks might also be opposed, contested, circumvented or found to be unenforceable, weak or invalid, and we might not be able to prevent third parties from infringing or otherwise violating them or using similar marks in a manner that causes confusion or dilutes the value or strength of our brand.
In addition to registered intellectual property rights, we rely on non-registered proprietary information and technology, such as trade secrets, confidential information and know-how. We attempt to protect our intellectual property, technology, and confidential information by requiring our employees, contractors, consultants, corporate collaborators, advisors and other third parties who develop intellectual property on our behalf to enter into agreements relating to confidentiality and invention assignments, and third parties we share information with to enter into nondisclosure and confidentiality agreements. However, we might not have any such agreements in place with some of the parties who have developed intellectual property on our behalf and/or with some of the parties that have or might have had access to our confidential information, know-how, and trade secrets. Even where these agreements are in place, they might be insufficient or breached, or might not effectively prevent unauthorized access to or unauthorized use, disclosure, misappropriation, or reverse engineering of our confidential information, intellectual property, or technology. Moreover, these agreements might not provide an adequate remedy for breaches or in the event of unauthorized use or disclosure of our confidential information or technology, or infringement of our intellectual property. If any of our trade secrets were to be lawfully obtained or independently developed by a competitor or other third party, we would have no right to prevent them from using that
technology or information to compete with us, and our competitive position could be materially and adversely harmed.
The loss of trade secret protection could make it easier for third parties to compete with our products and services by copying functionality. Additionally, individuals not subject to invention assignment agreements might make adverse ownership claims to our current and future intellectual property, and, to the extent that our employees, independent contractors, or other third parties with whom we do business use intellectual property owned by others in their work for us, disputes might arise as to the rights in related or resulting know-how and inventions.
In addition, we might need to expend significant resources to apply for, maintain, enforce and monitor our intellectual property rights and such efforts might be ineffective and could result in substantial costs and diversion of resources. An adverse outcome in any such litigation or proceedings might expose us to a loss of our competitive position, significant liabilities, and damage to our brand, or require us to seek licenses that might not be available on commercially acceptable terms, if at all.
We have been, currently are, and might in the future be, subject to claims that we violated third-party intellectual property rights, which, even where meritless, can be costly to defend and could materially adversely affect our business, results of operations, and financial condition.
Our success depends, in part, on our ability to develop and commercialize our products and services without infringing, misappropriating or otherwise violating the intellectual property rights of third parties. However, we might not be aware that our products, services, or marketing materials are infringing, misappropriating or otherwise violating third-party intellectual property rights and such third parties might bring claims alleging such infringement, misappropriation or violation. As we face increasing competition and become increasingly high profile, the possibility of receiving a larger number of intellectual property claims against us grows. In addition, various “non-practicing entities,” and other intellectual property rights holders have in the past and might in the future attempt to assert intellectual property claims against us or seek to monetize the intellectual property rights they own to extract value through licensing or other settlements.
Our use of third-party software and other intellectual property rights might be subject to claims of infringement or misappropriation. The vendors who provide us with technology that we incorporate in our product offerings also could become subject to various infringement claims.
From time to time, our competitors or other third parties have in the past claimed, currently claim, and might in the future claim, that we are infringing upon, misappropriating or otherwise violating their intellectual property rights. We cannot predict the outcome of lawsuits and cannot ensure that the results of any such actions will not have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, cash flows or prospects. Any claims or litigation, even those without merit and regardless of the outcome, could cause us to incur significant expenses and, if successfully asserted against us, could require that we pay substantial costs or damages, obtain a license, which might not be available on commercially reasonable terms or at all, pay significant ongoing royalty payments, settlements or licensing fees, satisfy indemnification obligations, prevent us from offering our products or services or using certain technologies, force us to implement expensive and time-consuming work-arounds or re-designs, distract management from our business or impose other unfavorable terms.
We expect that the occurrence of infringement claims is likely to grow as the market for financial services grows and as we introduce new and updated products and services, and the outcome of any allegation is often uncertain. Accordingly, our exposure to damages resulting from infringement claims could increase and this could further exhaust our financial and management resources. Even if intellectual property claims do not result in litigation or are resolved in our favor, these claims, and the time and resources necessary to resolve them, could divert the resources of our management and require significant expenditures.
Some of our products and services contain open source software, which could pose particular risks to our proprietary software, products, and services in a manner that could harm our business.
We use open source software in our products and services (as well as in some of our internally developed systems) and we anticipate using open source software in the future. Some open source software licenses require those who distribute open source software as part of their own software product to publicly disclose all or part of the source code to such software product or to make available any derivative works of the open source code on unfavorable terms or at no cost, and we might be subject to such terms. The terms of many open source licenses to which we are subject have not been interpreted by U.S. or foreign courts, and there is a risk that open source software licenses could be construed in a manner that imposes unanticipated conditions or restrictions on our ability to provide or distribute our products or services. We could face claims from third parties claiming ownership of, or demanding release of, the open source software or derivative works that we developed using such software, which could include our proprietary source code, or otherwise seeking to enforce the terms of the applicable open source license. These claims could result in litigation and could require us to make our proprietary software source code freely available, purchase a costly license, or cease offering the implicated products or services unless and until we can offer a different solution, which might be a costly and time-consuming process. While we monitor our use of open source software and try to ensure that none is used in a manner that would require us to disclose our proprietary source code or that would otherwise breach the terms of an open source agreement, such use could inadvertently occur, or could be claimed to have occurred, in part because open source license terms can be ambiguous, vague, or subject to various interpretations, especially given the absence of controlling case law in the U.S. or other courts. Additionally, we may open source some of our own proprietary source code and/or may make contributions to open source software. There is a risk that our proprietary software or contributions may be used in such a manner that we may need to enforce our rights to ownership of such open source software, including seeking proper usage, compliance with our license terms, or through litigation. Any actual or claimed requirement to disclose our proprietary source code or pay damages for breach of license terms, or failure to enforce our ownership rights over the use of our proprietary source code could harm our business and could help third parties, including our competitors, develop products and services that are similar to or better than ours.
Risks Related to Finance, Accounting and Tax Matters
Covenants in our credit agreements could restrict our operations and if we do not effectively manage our business to comply with these covenants, our financial condition could be adversely impacted.
We have entered into certain credit agreements and might enter into additional agreements for other borrowing in the future. These agreements contain various restrictive covenants, including, among other things, minimum liquidity and tangible net worth requirements, restrictions on our ability to dispose of assets, make acquisitions or investments, incur debt or liens, make distributions to our stockholders, or enter into certain types of related person transactions. These agreements also contain financial covenants, including obligations to maintain certain capitalization amounts and other financial ratios. These restrictions might restrict our current and future operations, including our ability to incur debt to increase our liquidity position.
Our ability to meet these restrictive covenants can be impacted by events beyond our control that could cause us to be unable to comply. The credit agreements provide that our breach or failure to satisfy some of these covenants constitutes an event of default. Upon the occurrence of an event of default, our lenders could elect to declare all amounts outstanding under our debt agreements to be immediately due and payable. In addition, our lenders might have the right to proceed against the assets we provided as collateral pursuant to the agreements. If the debt under the credit agreements were to be accelerated, and if we did not have sufficient cash on hand or be able to sell sufficient collateral to repay it, it would have an immediate adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.
Our insurance coverage might be inadequate or expensive.
We use a combination of third-party insurance and self-insurance mechanisms, including a wholly owned captive insurance subsidiary. We are subject to claims in the ordinary course of business. These
claims can involve substantial amounts of money and involve significant defense costs. It is not possible to prevent or detect all activities giving rise to claims and the precautions we take might not be effective in all cases. We maintain voluntary and required insurance coverage, including, among others, general liability, property, director and officer, excess-SIPC, cyber and data breach, crime, and fidelity bond insurance. Our insurance coverage is expensive and maintaining or expanding our insurance coverage might have an adverse effect on our results of operations and financial condition.
Our insurance coverage is subject to terms such as deductibles, coinsurance, limits and policy exclusions, as well as risk of counterparty denial of coverage, default or insolvency, and might be insufficient to protect us against all losses and costs stemming from processing, operational, and technological failures. Furthermore, for certain lines of coverage, continued insurance coverage might not be available to us in the future on economically reasonable terms, or at all. The successful assertion of one or more large claims against us that exceed available insurance coverage, or the occurrence of material changes in our insurance policies, including premium increases or the imposition of large deductible or co-insurance requirements, could have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition, and results of operations.
Changes in U.S. and foreign tax laws and policies could adversely impact our tax liabilities.
We are, and may in the future become, subject to complex and evolving U.S. and foreign tax laws and regulations, which might in the future make changes to corporate income tax rates, the treatment of foreign earnings, or other income tax laws that could have an adverse impact on our business, result of operations, financial condition and cash flows.
Our determination of our tax liability is subject to review by applicable tax authorities. The determination of our tax liabilities requires significant judgment, and, in the ordinary course of business, there are transactions and calculations where the ultimate tax determination is complex and uncertain. Although we believe our determinations are reasonable, the ultimate amount of our tax obligations owed might differ from the amounts recorded in our financial statements in the event of a review by applicable tax authorities and any such difference could have an adverse effect on our results of operations. Tax authorities might also disagree with certain positions we have taken or might take in the future, which could subject us to additional tax liabilities.
Our corporate structure and associated transfer pricing policies also contemplate future growth in international markets, and consider the functions, risks, and assets of various entities involved in intercompany transactions. The taxing authorities of the jurisdictions in which we operate may challenge our methodologies for valuing intercompany transactions pursuant to our intercompany arrangements or disagree with our determinations as to the income and expenses attributable to specific jurisdictions.
In addition, from time to time, proposals are introduced in the U.S. Congress and state legislatures, as well as by foreign governments, to impose new taxes on a broad range of financial transactions, including transactions that occur on our platforms, such as the buying and selling of stocks, derivative transactions, and cryptocurrencies. If enacted, such financial transaction taxes could increase the cost to customers of investing or trading on our platforms and reduce or adversely affect U.S. market conditions and liquidity, general levels of interest in investing, and the volume of trades and other transactions from which we derive transaction-based revenues. Any financial transaction tax implemented in any jurisdiction in which we operate could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition, or results of operations, and as a retail brokerage we could be impacted to a greater degree than other market participants.
We also are subject to non-income taxes, such as payroll, sales, use, value-added, net worth, excise, goods and services, and property taxes in the U.S. and various foreign jurisdictions. Specifically, we might be subject to “digital service taxes” or new allocations of tax as a result of increasing efforts by certain jurisdictions to tax cross border activities that might not have been subject to tax under existing international tax principles. Companies such as ours could be adversely impacted by such taxes.
Our ability to use our net operating losses to offset future taxable income could be subject to certain limitations.
As of March 31, 2026, we have U.S. federal, state and non-U.S. NOLs available to reduce future taxable income subject to certain limitations. Under Sections 382 and 383 of the Code, a corporation that undergoes an “ownership change” (as defined by the Code) may be subject to limitations on its ability to utilize its pre-change NOLs and other tax attributes such as research tax credits to offset future taxable income. If it is determined that we have in the past experienced an ownership change, or if we undergo one or more ownership changes as a result of future transactions in our stock, then our ability to utilize NOLs and other pre-change tax attributes could be limited by Sections 382 and 383 of the Code, and similar state provisions. Future changes in our stock ownership, many of which are outside of our control, could result in an ownership change under Section 382 or 383 of the Code. Furthermore, our ability to utilize NOLs of any companies that we acquire in the future may be subject to limitations. In addition, there may be periods during which the use of NOLs is suspended or otherwise limited. For instance, for state income tax purposes, a California franchise tax law change limits the usability of California state NOLs to offset California taxable income in taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2024, and before January 1, 2027. For these reasons, we might not be able to utilize our NOLs, even if we maintain profitability.
Our tax information reporting obligations are subject to change.
Although we believe we are compliant with the tax reporting and withholding requirements with respect to our customers’ transactions in the jurisdictions in which we operate, various U.S., state or foreign tax authorities might significantly change applicable tax reporting requirements or disagree with the exact application of new or existing requirements. If the taxing authorities determine that we are not in compliance with our tax reporting or withholding requirements with respect to customer asset transactions, we may be exposed to additional withholding obligations, which could increase our compliance costs and result in penalties.
We track certain operational metrics, which are subject to inherent challenges in measurement, and real or perceived inaccuracies in such metrics could harm our reputation, adversely affect our stock price, and result in litigation.
We track certain operational metrics using internal company data gathered on an analytics platform that we developed and operate, including metrics such as Funded Customers, Total Platform Assets, Net Deposits, and Robinhood Gold Subscribers, as well as cohorts of our customers, which have not been validated by any independent third party and which might differ from estimates or similar metrics published by other parties due to differences in sources, methodologies, or the assumptions on which we rely. Our internal systems and tools are subject to a number of limitations and our methodologies for tracking these metrics have changed in the past and might change further over time, which could result in unexpected changes to our metrics or otherwise cause the comparability of such metrics from period to period to suffer, including the metrics we publicly disclose. In addition, if the internal systems and tools we use to track these metrics undercount or overcount performance or contain algorithmic or other technical errors, the data we report might not be accurate. While these numbers are based on what we believe to be reasonable estimates of our metrics for the applicable period of measurement, there are inherent challenges in measuring how our platforms are used across large populations globally. Further, with our acquisition of TradePMR in February 2025, we are clearing through a third party for TradePMR related accounts and using data collected by that third party to compute certain metrics. So, for TradePMR-related accounts only, if the third-party systems and tools we use to track this data undercount or overcount performance or contain algorithmic or other technical errors, the relevant metrics we report that rely on such data might not be accurate. You should not place undue reliance on such operational metrics when evaluating an investment in our Class A common stock. See “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations-Key Performance Metrics” for definitions of our key operational metrics.
If our operational metrics are not accurate representations of our business, or if investors do not perceive these metrics to be accurate, or if we discover material inaccuracies with respect to these
figures, our reputation could be significantly harmed, the trading price of our Class A common stock could decline and we might be subject to stockholder litigation, which could be costly.
If we fail to maintain effective internal control over financial reporting, as well as required disclosure controls and procedures, our ability to produce timely and accurate consolidated financial statements or comply with applicable regulations could be impaired.
The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and related rules of the SEC require, among other things, that we maintain effective disclosure controls and procedures and internal control over financial reporting. In order to maintain and improve the effectiveness of our disclosure controls and procedures and internal control over financial reporting, we have expended, and anticipate that we will continue to expend, significant resources, including accounting-related costs and significant management oversight.
Our current controls and any new controls that we develop could become inadequate because of changes in conditions in our business. In addition, changes in accounting principles or interpretations could also challenge our internal controls and require that we establish new business processes, systems and controls to accommodate such changes. We have limited experience with implementing the systems and controls that are necessary to operate as a public company, as well as adopting changes in accounting principles or interpretations mandated by the relevant regulatory bodies. Additionally, if these new systems, controls or standards and the associated process changes do not give rise to the benefits that we expect or do not operate as intended, it could adversely affect our financial reporting systems and processes, our ability to produce timely and accurate financial reports or the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting. Moreover, our business might be harmed if we experience problems with any new systems and controls that result in delays in their implementation or increased costs to correct any post-implementation issues that might arise. Further, weaknesses in our disclosure controls and internal control over financial reporting could be discovered in the future. Any failure to develop or maintain effective controls or any difficulties encountered in their implementation or improvement could harm our business or cause us to fail to meet our reporting obligations and could result in a restatement of our consolidated financial statements for prior periods.
Any failure to implement and maintain effective internal control over financial reporting could also adversely affect the results of periodic management evaluations and annual independent registered public accounting firm attestation reports regarding the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting that are required in our periodic reports filed with the SEC. Ineffective disclosure controls and procedures or internal control over financial reporting could harm our business, cause investors to lose confidence in the accuracy and completeness of our reported financial and other information, and result in us becoming subject to investigations by the stock exchange on which our securities are listed, the SEC or other regulatory authorities, any of which would likely have a negative effect on the trading price of our Class A common stock and have a material and adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition and prospects. In addition, if we are unable to continue to meet these requirements, we might not be able to remain listed on the Nasdaq.
Risks Related to Our Class A Common Stock
The trading price for our Class A common stock has been and might continue to be volatile, and you could lose all or part of your investment.
The trading price of our Class A common stock has been and might continue to be highly volatile and could continue to be subject to fluctuations in response to one or more of the risk factors described in this report, many of which are beyond our control. For example, on March 10, 2025 (amid a significant downturn in the equity markets driven by recession concerns and macroeconomic uncertainty), the intra-day trading price of our Class A common stock declined by as much as 20%. These fluctuations could cause you to lose all or part of your investment in our Class A common stock since you might be unable to sell your shares at or above the price you paid. Additional factors that could have a significant effect on the trading price of our Class A common stock include:
•publication of research reports about us, our competitors, or our industry, or changes in, or failure to meet, estimates made by securities analysts or ratings agencies of our financial and operating performance, or lack of research reports by industry analysts or ceasing of analyst coverage;
•announcements by us or our competitors of new offerings or platform features;
•the public’s perception of the quality and accuracy of our key metrics on our customer base and engagement;
•the public’s reaction to our media statements, other public announcements and filings with the SEC;
•rumors and market speculation involving us or other companies in our industry;
•the extent to which retail and other individual investors (as distinguished from institutional investors), including our customers, invest in our Class A common stock, which might result in increased volatility; and
•media coverage related to certain individuals and entities identified as having owned our stock, and any speculation related to plans to dispose of their holdings.
In addition, in the past, following periods of volatility in the overall market and the trading price of a particular company’s securities, securities class action litigation has often been instituted against these companies. Class action litigation has in the past and could in the future result in substantial costs and a diversion of our management’s attention and resources.
Further, if the market price of our Class A common stock is above the level that investors determine is reasonable for our Class A common stock, some investors might attempt to short our Class A common stock, which would create additional downward pressure on the trading price of our Class A common stock.
Substantial future issuances or sales of shares of our Class A common stock in the public market could result in significant dilution to our stockholders and such issuances or sales, or the perception that they may occur, could cause the trading price of our Class A common stock to fall.
As of March 31, 2026, our founders and their related entities hold approximately 12% of our outstanding common stock (and, as described below, over 50% of the voting power of our outstanding capital stock). If our founders or other significant stockholders sell, or indicate an intent to sell, large amounts of stock in the public market, such sales, or the perception that these sales might occur, could cause the trading price of our Class A common stock to decline substantially.
Similarly, significant numbers of shares are subject to future issuance including under outstanding warrants held by pre-IPO investors, and under outstanding stock options and RSUs held by employees and other service providers, and significant numbers of additional shares are available for award grant purposes under our 2021 Plan (as defined in Note 11 - Common Stock and Stockholders’ Equity to our unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements in this Quarterly Report) and for issuance under our ESPP. All of these shares will become eligible for sale in the public market upon exercise, vesting, or settlement, as applicable (and to the extent granted in the discretion of our board of directors, in the case of shares available for grant) or may be sold to satisfy applicable tax withholding requirements. These and any future issuances of shares of our capital stock, or of securities convertible into or exercisable for our capital stock could depress the market price of our Class A common stock and result in a significant dilution for stockholders.
We have authorized more capital stock in recent years to provide additional stock options and RSUs to our employees and to permit for the consummation of equity and equity-linked financings and might continue to do so in the future. Our employee headcount has increased in the past few years, so the
amount of dilution due to awards of equity-based compensation to our employees could be substantial. Further, any sales of our Class A common stock (including shares of Class A common stock issuable upon conversion of our Class B common stock, as stock options are exercised, or as RSUs are settled) might make it more difficult for us to sell equity securities in the future at a time and at a price that we deem appropriate. These sales could also cause the trading price of our Class A common stock to fall and make it more difficult for you to sell shares of our Class A common stock.
There are no guarantees that we will repurchase shares under the Repurchase Program or that the Repurchase Program will result in increased shareholder value.
On March 24, 2026, Robinhood announced that its board of directors approved the Repurchase Program authorizing the Company to repurchase up to $1.5 billion of its outstanding Class A common stock to return value to shareholders. The Repurchase Program replaced the Company’s Prior Repurchase Program and is inclusive of amounts that remained available for repurchase under the Prior Repurchase Program which were rolled over into the Repurchase Program, and represented more than $1.1 billion of incremental capacity. As of March 31, 2026, Robinhood has made share repurchases of $2 million under the Repurchase Program. While the Repurchase Program does not have an expiration date, the Company’s management currently expects to conduct the Repurchase Program over a period of approximately three years, beginning in the first quarter of 2026. The timing and amount of repurchase transactions will be determined by the Company from time to time at its discretion based on its evaluation of market conditions, share price, and other factors, and repurchase transactions may be made using a variety of methods, such as open market share repurchases, including the use of trading plans intended to qualify under Rule 10b5-1 under the Exchange Act, or other financial arrangements or transactions. The Repurchase Program does not obligate the Company to acquire any particular amount of Class A common stock, and the Repurchase Program may be suspended or discontinued at any time at the Company’s discretion. As a result, there is no guarantee with respect to the timing or amount of any future share repurchases, or that we will repurchase the full amount authorized under the Repurchase Program. Other factors, including changes in tax or securities laws, such as the U.S. Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 which imposes a corporate excise tax of 1% on net stock repurchases, could also impact our stock repurchases.
There are a number of ways in which the Repurchase Program could fail to result in enhanced shareholder value. For example, any failure to repurchase stock after we have announced our intention to do so may negatively impact the trading price of our Class A common stock. The existence of the Repurchase Program could also cause our stock price to trade higher than it otherwise would and could potentially reduce the market liquidity for our stock. The trading price of our Class A common stock could decline below the levels at which we repurchased shares and short-term stock price fluctuations could reduce the effectiveness of the Repurchase Program. Any announcement of a pause in, or termination of, the Repurchase Program may also result in a decrease in the trading price of our Class A common stock. Furthermore, there is no guarantee that our stock repurchases will be able to successfully mitigate the dilutive effect of the equity awards we grant to our employees.
Additionally, repurchasing our Class A common stock will reduce the amount of cash, cash equivalents and marketable securities we have available to fund working capital, capital expenditures, capital preserving investments, strategic acquisitions or business opportunities, and other general corporate purposes, and there are no guarantees that the Repurchase Program will result in increased shareholder value. Furthermore, the timing and amount of repurchases, if any, will be subject to liquidity, market and economic conditions, compliance with applicable legal requirements and other relevant factors. If we are unable to, or choose not to, repurchase shares under the Repurchase Program, this may have a negative impact on the perception of the Company as an investment opportunity by shareholders or investment analysts, which may in turn negatively impact the trading price of our Class A common stock.
The multi-class structure of our common stock has the effect of concentrating voting power with our founders, which limits your ability to influence the outcome of matters submitted to our stockholders for approval. In addition, the Founders’ Voting Agreement and any future issuances of our Class C common stock could prolong the duration of our founders’ voting control.
Our Class A common stock has one vote per share, our Class B common stock has 10 votes per share, and our Class C common stock has no voting rights, except as otherwise required by law. Our founders and Founder Affiliates together hold all of the issued and outstanding shares of our Class B common stock. Accordingly, Mr. Tenev, who is also our CEO, President and Chair of our board of directors, and Mr. Bhatt, who is a director, collectively with their related entities hold over 50% of the voting power of our outstanding capital stock. As a result, our founders have the ability to determine or significantly influence any action requiring the approval of our stockholders, including the election of our board of directors, the adoption of amendments to our Charter and our Bylaws and the approval of any merger, consolidation, sale of all or substantially all of our assets or other major corporate transaction.
In addition, our founders and Founder Affiliates have entered into the Founders’ Voting Agreement in which they have agreed, among other things, (i) to vote all of the shares of our common stock held by such founder or Founder Affiliate for the election of each founder to, and against the removal of each founder from, our board of directors, (ii) to vote together in the election of other directors generally, subject to deferring to the decision of the nominating and corporate governance committee in the event of any disagreement between the founders, (iii) effective upon a founder’s death or disability, to grant a voting proxy to the other founder with respect to shares of our common stock held by the deceased or disabled founder or over which he was entitled to vote (or direct the voting) immediately prior to his death or disability, and (iv) to grant each other rights of first offer in the event of proposed transfers that would otherwise cause Class B shares to convert into Class A shares under our Charter. The Founders’ Voting Agreement has the effect of concentrating voting power in our founders (or either one of them).
Further pursuant to the equity exchange right agreements entered into between us and each of our founders in connection with our IPO, each of our founders has Equity Exchange Rights. Any exercise by our founders of these Equity Exchange Rights will dilute the voting power of holders of our Class A common stock.
Our founders might have interests that differ from yours and might vote in a way with which you disagree and which may be adverse to your interests. Therefore, the founders’ concentrated voting control might have the effect of delaying, preventing or deterring a change in control of our Company, could deprive our stockholders of an opportunity to receive a premium for their capital stock as part of a sale of our Company, and might ultimately affect the market price of our Class A common stock. Further, the separation between voting power and economic interests could cause conflicts of interest between our founders and our other stockholders, which might result in our founders undertaking, or causing us to undertake, actions that would be desirable for our founders but would not be desirable for our other stockholders.
We have no current plans to issue shares of our Class C common stock. Because the shares of our Class C common stock have no voting rights, except as required by law, if we issue Class C common stock in the future, the voting control of our founders could be maintained for a longer period of time than would be the case if we issued Class A common stock rather than Class C common stock.
Certain provisions in our Charter and our Bylaws and of Delaware law as well as certain FINRA rules might prevent or delay an acquisition of Robinhood, which could decrease the trading price of our Class A common stock.
Our Charter and our Bylaws contain, and Delaware law contains, provisions that might have the effect of deterring takeovers by making such takeovers more expensive to the bidder and by encouraging prospective acquirers to negotiate with our board of directors rather than to attempt a hostile takeover, such as a classified board, limitations on the ability of stockholders to take action by written consent, and the ability of our board of directors to designate the terms of preferred stock and authorize its issuance without stockholder approval. We believe these provisions will protect our stockholders from coercive or otherwise unfair takeover tactics by requiring potential acquirers to negotiate with our board of directors and by providing our board of directors with more time to assess any acquisition proposal. These provisions are not intended to make Robinhood immune from takeovers. However, these provisions will apply even if the offer might be considered beneficial by some stockholders and could delay or prevent an
acquisition that our board of directors determines is not in the best interests of Robinhood and our stockholders. Accordingly, if our board of directors determines that a potential acquisition is not in the best interests of Robinhood and our stockholders, but certain stockholders believe that such a transaction would be beneficial to Robinhood and our stockholders, such stockholders might elect to sell their shares in Robinhood, and the trading price of our Class A common stock could decrease. These and other provisions of our Charter, our Bylaws and the Delaware General Corporation Law could have the effect of delaying or deterring a change in control, which might limit the opportunity for our stockholders to receive a premium for their shares of our Class A common stock and might also affect the price that some investors are willing to pay for our Class A common stock.
In addition, a third party attempting to acquire us or a substantial position in our Class A common stock might be delayed or ultimately prevented from doing so by change in ownership or control regulations to which certain of our regulated subsidiaries are subject. For example, FINRA Rule 1017 generally provides that FINRA approval must be obtained in connection with any transaction resulting in a single person or entity owning, directly or indirectly, 25% or more of a FINRA member firm’s equity and would include a change in control of a parent company and similar approval from the FCA, which regulates our U.K. authorized broker-dealer subsidiary, must be obtained in connection with any transaction resulting in a person or entity holding, directly or indirectly, 10% or more of the equity or voting power of a U.K. authorized person or the parent of a U.K. authorized person. These and any other applicable regulations relating to changes in control of us or our regulated subsidiaries could further have the effect of delaying or deterring a change in control of us.
The exclusive forum provisions of our Charter could limit our stockholders’ ability to choose the judicial forum for some types of lawsuits against us or our directors, officers, or employees.
Our Charter provides that, unless we consent in writing to the selection of an alternative forum, to the fullest extent permitted by law, the sole and exclusive forum for a number of types of actions or proceedings shall be the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (or, if the Court of Chancery does not have subject matter jurisdiction, another state court sitting in the State of Delaware) (or, if no state court located within the State of Delaware has jurisdiction, the federal district court for the District of Delaware), in all cases subject to the court having jurisdiction over indispensable parties named as defendants. Our Charter also provides that the federal district courts of the U.S. will be the exclusive forum for resolving any complaint asserting a cause of action under the Securities Act. Nothing in our Charter precludes stockholders that assert claims under the Exchange Act from bringing such claims in any court, subject to applicable law.
Any person or entity purchasing or otherwise acquiring or holding any interest in any of our securities shall be deemed to have notice of and consented to these provisions. These exclusive forum provisions might limit a stockholder’s ability to bring a claim in a judicial forum of its choosing for disputes with us or our directors, officers, or other employees, which might discourage lawsuits against us and our directors, officers, and other employees. The enforceability of similar choice of forum provisions in other companies’ charter documents has been challenged in legal proceedings, and it is possible that a court could find these types of provisions to be inapplicable or unenforceable. If a court were to find the exclusive forum provisions in our Charter to be inapplicable or unenforceable in an action, we might incur additional costs associated with resolving the dispute in other jurisdictions, which could adversely affect our results of operations.
ITEM 2. UNREGISTERED SALES OF EQUITY SECURITIES AND USE OF PROCEEDS
Sales of Unregistered Securities
From January 1, 2026 through March 31, 2026, the Company did not sell any shares of Class A common stock (or other equity securities of RHM) that were not registered under the Securities Act.
The following table presents repurchases of shares of our Class A common stock during the three months ended March 31, 2026:
Period
Total Number of Shares Purchased
Average Price Paid per Share (1)
Total Number of Shares Purchased as Part of Publicly Announced Plans or Programs (2)
Approximate Dollar Value of Shares that May Yet Be Purchased Under the Plans or Programs (2)
(in millions)
January 1, 2026 - January 31, 2026
286,555
$
105.17
286,555
$
561
February 1, 2026 - February 28, 2026
2,485,372
$
78.81
2,485,372
$
365
March 1, 2026 - March 31, 2026
315,611
$
76.12
315,611
$
1,498
(2)
Total
3,087,538
$
80.98
3,087,538
$
1,498
_______________
(1) The average cost per share excludes the 1% excise tax on net share repurchase and commissions.
(2) On March 24, 2026, we announced that the board of directors approved the Repurchase Program authorizing the Company to repurchase up to $1.5 billion of its outstanding Class A common stock. The Repurchase Program replaces the Company’s Prior Repurchase Program and is inclusive of amounts that remained available for repurchase under the Prior Repurchase Program which were rolled over into the Repurchase Program, and represents more than $1.1 billion of incremental capacity. While the Repurchase Program does not have an expiration date, management currently expects to conduct the Repurchase Program over a period of approximately three years, beginning in the first quarter of 2026. The timing and amount of repurchase transactions will be determined by us from time to time at its discretion based on its evaluation of market conditions, share price, and other factors, and repurchase transactions may be made using a variety of methods, such as open market share repurchases, including the use of trading plans intended to qualify under Rule 10b5-1 under the Exchange Act, or other financial arrangements or transactions. The Repurchase Program does not obligate us to acquire any particular amount of Class A common stock, and the Repurchase Program may be suspended or discontinued at any time at our discretion.Refer to Note 11 - Common Stock and Stockholders’ Equity of our unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements in this Quarterly Report for more information about the Repurchase Program.
On March 12, 2026, Jeffrey Pinner, our Chief Technology Officer, adopted a “Rule 10b5-1 trading arrangement” (as defined in Item 408(a) of Regulation S-K) intended to satisfy the affirmative defense of Rule 10b5-1(c) under the Exchange Act pursuant to which he may sell shares of our Class A common stock resulting from the settlement of up to 214,461 unvested RSUs (less any shares withheld for applicable taxes), on or prior to July 1, 2027. RSUs convert into Class A common stock on a one-for-one basis upon vesting and settlement.
In addition, certain of our officers may, from time to time, make elections to participate in our ESPP and to have shares withheld to cover withholding taxes or pay the exercise price of options, which may be designed to satisfy the affirmative defense conditions of Rule 10b5-1 under the Exchange Act or may constitute “non-Rule 10b5-1 trading arrangements” (as defined in Item 408(c) of Regulation S-K).
