Robinhood seeks to rebuff amended complaint over text messages
Shortly after Robinhood Financial LLC was hit with an amended complaint over its “refer-a-friend” marketing campaign, the company has sought to rebuff the accusations.
Earlier this week, Robinhood submitted a motion to dismiss the complaint at the Washington Western District Court.
Let’s recall that the case, brought by plaintiffs Cooper Moore and Andrew Gillette, focuses on messages that Robinhood clients send to their friends as part of Robinhood’s refer-a-friend campaign. The plaintiffs in this lawsuit are displeased with the fact that they never consented to receive such messages.
The plaintiffs argue that Robinhood substantially assists and supports its users in sending illegal text messages by, inter alia:
- a) encouraging and incentivizing its users to send referral messages by compensating them with free stock;
- b) technologically enabling its users to initiate referral text messages through the Robinhood App;
- c) suggesting which contacts should receive referral text messages when the user uses the “Share Contacts” method;
- d) composing the text messages;
- e) composing and providing unique user-specific referral links that a text recipient can use to sign up for Defendant’s services; and
- f) formulating text and images to be sent as part of the refer-a-friend text messages.
According to Robinhood’s motion to dismiss, the plaintiffs fail to state a claim. Robinhood argues that it did not control whether any particular Robinhood user might or might not have chosen to send through his or her own mobile device, to any of his or her own personal contacts, at a time of his or her choice, an invitation to “join Robinhood.”
Robinhood says that Plaintiffs’ allegations are insufficient to support their claims under (1) the Washington Commercial Electronic Mail Act (“CEMA”), RCW 19.190.060; or (2) the Washington Consumer Protection Act (“CPA”), RCW ch. 19.86, predicated on a CEMA violation.
The defendant says it did not provide “substantial assistance” to the Robinhood users who transmitted referral text messages to the plaintiffs. Moreover, Robinhood notes that the Amended Complaint admits that Robinhood users were solely responsible for deciding whether, when, to whom, and on what personal device to send the text messages.
Robinhood says it may be liable for assisting in the transmission of a text only if it knew or avoided knowing the Robinhood users sent the text messages at issue in violation of the CPA as CEMA requires. But Robinhood users cannot violate the CPA via a CEMA violation unless they themselves “conduct business in the state.”
Finally, Robinhood says the Amended Complaint fails to sufficiently allege that the text messages Plaintiffs received each constituted a “commercial electronic text message.” CEMA limits the definition of such a message to those “sent to promote real property, goods, or services for sale or lease.” RCW 19.190.010(3). According to Robinhood, the plaintiffs do not allege facts to sufficiently plead that the text messages they received were sent to promote the sale or lease of any real property, goods, or services, because an offer of free stock to sign up for Robinhood’s commission-free investment service—untethered from any sale or lease of real property, goods, or services—cannot constitute a “commercial electronic text message” under CEMA.
Hence, according to Robinhood, the complaint against it should be nixed.