Robinhood reiterates its opposition in spam messages lawsuit
Robinhood had to once again defend its position in a lawsuit about spam messages sent as a part of its refer-a-friend marketing campaign.
The plaintiffs are individuals who got sent messages by their friends under a marketing program devised by Robinhood inviting them to trade with Robinhood. According to the plaintiffs, Robinhood Financial LLC invented the scheme to pay and enable its users to spam their contacts with text message advertisements asking those contacts to “join Robinhood.”
Earlier in August, the Court rejected Robinhood’s challenges to the adequacy of the Amended Complaint. The Court found that the plaintiffs have adequately alleged that the invitational messages they received were commercial electronic text messages.
Now, Robinhood has to respond to the complaint. On August 17, 2022, the brokerage filed its answer in the Washington Western District Court.
In the document, seen by FX News Group, Robinhood asserts 19 affirmative defenses.
According to the company, the plaintiffs’ complaint fails to allege facts sufficient to state a claim against Robinhood.
Also, the broker says that the claims of Plaintiffs and/or others alleged to be members of the putative class fail to the extent that clear and affirmative consent existed to contact Plaintiffs and/or others alleged to be members of the putative class.
Further, Robinhood continues to insist that it did not initiate or assist in the transmission of a text message to Plaintiffs and/or others alleged to be members of the putative class, as defined under Washington’s Commercial Electronic Mail Act.
Interestingly, Robinhood argues that the plaintiffs and/or others alleged to be members of the putative class have sustained no cognizable injury or damages.
The broker also argues that the alleged damages, if any, were caused, in whole or in part, by the acts or omissions of unnamed third parties, and Robinhood is not responsible for their conduct.
Finally, Robinhood argues that the claims of Plaintiffs and/or others alleged to be members of the putative class for injunctive relief are barred, in whole or in part, because there is no threat of irreparable harm.