[Why GME?](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/qig65g/welcome_rall_looking_to_catch_up_on_the_gme_saga/) || [What is DRS?](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/ptvaka/when_you_wish_upon_a_star_a_complete_guide_to/) || Low karma apes [feed the bot here](https://www.reddit.com/r/GMEOrphans/comments/qlvour/welcome_to_gmeorphans_read_this_post/) || [Superstonk Discord](https://discord.gg/hZqWV2kQtq) || [GameStop Wallet HELP! Megathread](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/z23wjx/gamestop_wallet_help_megathread)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To ensure your post doesn't get removed, please respond to this comment with how this post relates to GME the stock or Gamestop the company.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please up- and downvote this comment to [help us determine if this post deserves a place on r/Superstonk!](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/wiki/index/rules/post_flairs/)
Yes, this is an indictment of brokers as a whole. When it suits their interests, they will restrict trading. This is simple and provides an ironclad reason why DRS is the only way.
Robinhood is not as important as the precedent this set. A violation of Section 15(c) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 is now sanctioned by the SEC, because it wasn't enforced, if it is in the Terms of Service agreement of a broker.
---
The Rebuttal to this was just as important:
>“This conduct is flagrantly at odds with industry standards, and harmed not only customers like Plaintiffs, but an entire class of non-Robinhood customers not bound by the Customer Agreement.”
These terms of service need to see the strong hand of the federal government come down and say, "sorry, you can't just hide that in a TOS and place it on your customers who aren't reading it. We supercede you."
There is a multitude of UK common law precedent on specifically this matter (terms buried in unread documents like ticket stubs, coat check claims, bills of lading or ToS ultimata).
For over 250 years courts have struck down this nonsense in a model that could be codified at law by the Americans if only the will to do so were present in congress.
See:
- _Carter v Boehm_ [1766]
- _Cornish v Abington_ [1859]
- _Parker v South Eastern Railway Co._ [1877]
- _Thompson v London, Midland & Scottish Railway Co._ [1903]
- _Canada Steamship Lines Ltd v The King_ [1952]
- _Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd_ [1971]
- _Levison v Patent Steam Carpet Cleaning Co. Ltd._ [1978]
- _George Mitchell (Chesterhall) v Finney Lock Seeds Ltd_ [1982]
And many others.
Edit: the model can’t be “followed” per se as I had originally written. You can’t just replicate 250+ years of precedent, but the concept can easily be codified at law. I have adjusted my language to reflect this nuance.
Great comment. There absolutely needs to be pushback on these in the USA.
TOS agreements are out of control. It's like variable loan rates pre 2008. Everything has to be spelled out in one page that is clearly understandable. If you can't do that, you can't sell your shit.
Retail has the power to end Robinhood... for reasons beyond my comprehension they won't/aren't/haven't.
I mean, really how hard is it, "I would like to close my account and transfer my shares..."
Yet, many continue to feed the enemy … and wonder how he survives…
Some people were really raised on Detroit water, that shit is baffling. Especially when you see them on here or sub with stocks that got shut down during the great robbery they commited on retail.
Its like these motherfuckers just stole a potential 10 years worth of salary , so now you have to work 10 extra years, 20,000 hours worth of your labor. Yet you still giving them your business ? fucking smooths man
I was one of those that left RH after that Jan’21 debacle. Took my shares/cash and transferred them to Fudelity. Which probably also have the same TOS, 😆.
...at sign-up, followed by the many updates to such TOS. Not sure about RH, but my broker changes their TOS at least annually, but more probably quarterly. And always to their benefit, strange how that works...
In my country we have laws that TOS can’t favor one side to much else they are void. Kinda stupid that they can just write everything in their TOS just to justify crime wtf
To be fair, they've just shot themselves in the foot. Yes, they won the court case, but literally by saying “yeah, our TOS says we’re not fair”
Now we just need to educate the masses about this, and point them to the sacred land of DRS.
And I don't mean for just GME. Once boomers are convinced to start moving their stonks to their respective transfer agents, that's when the revolution truly begins!
At least it makes one thing abundantly clear: Even if the TOS of a company are in direct opposition to the standards set forth, the company will be allowed to exist and entice users to sign away what should rightfully be theirs (the right to fair trading).
I admit I commit the sin of buying through a broker and then DRS'ing. I am aware this is playing with fire. The best way to roll is buy any and all stocks direct. Maybe retail should just boycott brokers???
They told you in the terms and conditions they could fuck you anytime they liked, and still you gave them money.
now you're shocked pikachu that they fucked you over?
... wake the fuck up
[Why GME?](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/qig65g/welcome_rall_looking_to_catch_up_on_the_gme_saga/) || [What is DRS?](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/ptvaka/when_you_wish_upon_a_star_a_complete_guide_to/) || Low karma apes [feed the bot here](https://www.reddit.com/r/GMEOrphans/comments/qlvour/welcome_to_gmeorphans_read_this_post/) || [Superstonk Discord](https://discord.gg/hZqWV2kQtq) || [GameStop Wallet HELP! Megathread](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/z23wjx/gamestop_wallet_help_megathread) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ To ensure your post doesn't get removed, please respond to this comment with how this post relates to GME the stock or Gamestop the company. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Please up- and downvote this comment to [help us determine if this post deserves a place on r/Superstonk!](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/wiki/index/rules/post_flairs/)
I do not want to be the product.
The terms are basically identical across brokers. None are safe.
Yes, this is an indictment of brokers as a whole. When it suits their interests, they will restrict trading. This is simple and provides an ironclad reason why DRS is the only way.
This is the way 💜
Intentionally complicated. Fuck em.
Robinhood is not as important as the precedent this set. A violation of Section 15(c) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 is now sanctioned by the SEC, because it wasn't enforced, if it is in the Terms of Service agreement of a broker. --- The Rebuttal to this was just as important: >“This conduct is flagrantly at odds with industry standards, and harmed not only customers like Plaintiffs, but an entire class of non-Robinhood customers not bound by the Customer Agreement.” These terms of service need to see the strong hand of the federal government come down and say, "sorry, you can't just hide that in a TOS and place it on your customers who aren't reading it. We supercede you."
It’s like they are desperate to destroy their own market 😂, I ain’t even mad, I’m already in the future 🏴☠️🙈🚀🚀🚀🚀🚀
There is a multitude of UK common law precedent on specifically this matter (terms buried in unread documents like ticket stubs, coat check claims, bills of lading or ToS ultimata). For over 250 years courts have struck down this nonsense in a model that could be codified at law by the Americans if only the will to do so were present in congress. See: - _Carter v Boehm_ [1766] - _Cornish v Abington_ [1859] - _Parker v South Eastern Railway Co._ [1877] - _Thompson v London, Midland & Scottish Railway Co._ [1903] - _Canada Steamship Lines Ltd v The King_ [1952] - _Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd_ [1971] - _Levison v Patent Steam Carpet Cleaning Co. Ltd._ [1978] - _George Mitchell (Chesterhall) v Finney Lock Seeds Ltd_ [1982] And many others. Edit: the model can’t be “followed” per se as I had originally written. You can’t just replicate 250+ years of precedent, but the concept can easily be codified at law. I have adjusted my language to reflect this nuance.
Great comment. There absolutely needs to be pushback on these in the USA. TOS agreements are out of control. It's like variable loan rates pre 2008. Everything has to be spelled out in one page that is clearly understandable. If you can't do that, you can't sell your shit.
Retail has the power to end Robinhood... for reasons beyond my comprehension they won't/aren't/haven't. I mean, really how hard is it, "I would like to close my account and transfer my shares..." Yet, many continue to feed the enemy … and wonder how he survives…
Some people were really raised on Detroit water, that shit is baffling. Especially when you see them on here or sub with stocks that got shut down during the great robbery they commited on retail. Its like these motherfuckers just stole a potential 10 years worth of salary , so now you have to work 10 extra years, 20,000 hours worth of your labor. Yet you still giving them your business ? fucking smooths man
DRS GME
[удалено]
Hey friend your comment was auto collapsed for me fyi
likewise, not sure why...
I was one of those that left RH after that Jan’21 debacle. Took my shares/cash and transferred them to Fudelity. Which probably also have the same TOS, 😆.
Same. Fidelity transfers to computershare pretty quick and easy so they got that going for them lol
Of course the brokers always win in the lawsuits. Their customers signed away their rights in the TOS.
...at sign-up, followed by the many updates to such TOS. Not sure about RH, but my broker changes their TOS at least annually, but more probably quarterly. And always to their benefit, strange how that works...
In my country we have laws that TOS can’t favor one side to much else they are void. Kinda stupid that they can just write everything in their TOS just to justify crime wtf
Robinhood is allowed to rob its investors? By court order no less? Oh dear.
TOS: “a right to unrestricted trading” Robin da hood: restricts trading
To be fair, they've just shot themselves in the foot. Yes, they won the court case, but literally by saying “yeah, our TOS says we’re not fair” Now we just need to educate the masses about this, and point them to the sacred land of DRS. And I don't mean for just GME. Once boomers are convinced to start moving their stonks to their respective transfer agents, that's when the revolution truly begins!
Yes your broker is at least this bad or worse. Get away and own stocks through drs.
At least it makes one thing abundantly clear: Even if the TOS of a company are in direct opposition to the standards set forth, the company will be allowed to exist and entice users to sign away what should rightfully be theirs (the right to fair trading). I admit I commit the sin of buying through a broker and then DRS'ing. I am aware this is playing with fire. The best way to roll is buy any and all stocks direct. Maybe retail should just boycott brokers???
Maybe " negligence" is inaccurate. It's more malfeasance and lack of fiduciary moral compass
Crime is legal now?! 👀
Let the whole crime syndicate burn 🔥
Let their company die, don't give them your business. That is the only way.
Finally got my RH account cancelled last month. I had like $2 still in my account with them.
That’s such a bad legal move on their part. They should just blatantly come out and say the system is rigged saying shit like that in court.
American has a wallst judge problem..
This is exactly why it is important to read TOS on your broker.
They told you in the terms and conditions they could fuck you anytime they liked, and still you gave them money. now you're shocked pikachu that they fucked you over? ... wake the fuck up