FX BROKER NEWS - Robinhood Responds to Ice Cube Complaint

Online trading company Robinhood has responded to a complaint filed by O‘Shea Jackson, also known as Ice Cube, over the company’s use of his image to promote its “terrible products and services.”

Robinhood filed a motion to dismiss Ice Cube‘s complaint on April 22, 2021, with the company trying to rebuff the plaintiff’s allegations.

First off, let‘s recall that Ice Cube alleges that “in an act of unmitigated gall and transparent retribution, Robinhood and its subsidiary have now used the image and likeness of Ice Cube – without his permission – to promote Robinhood’s terrible products and services”.

According to the plaintiff, in March 2021, in the midst of Robinhood‘s meltdown, the defendants misappropriated Ice Cube’s image and likeness to promote Robinhoods products and services – “the last things in the world to which Ice Cube would ever attach his image and likeness”.

In Ice Cubes view, Robinhood is a textbook example of a greedy corporation taking advantage of its unwitting consumers. Ice Cube has brought this action to set the record straight: “Robinhood is a scam that Ice Cube wants nothing to do with”.

Plaintiffs claims are based on a single event—the publication of a Snacks newsletter entitled “Why are tech stock falling？” on March 8, 2021. To introduce the topic in a light and humorous way, the Article leads with a photograph and the tagline, “correct yourself, before you wreck yourself.” The plaintiff alleges the photograph depicts his “image and likeness.” Ice Cube also claims the tagline is a misquote of “the most well-known lyric” from one of his songs.

In its response to the plaintiffs complaint, Robinhood says that although the Article does not even mention his stage name, the plaintiff felt compelled to allege that “Ice Cube” is a federally registered trademark, bearing the Registration Number 3717252. That registration, Robinhood notes, is a word mark for “Ice Cube” for musical sound recordings, musical video recordings, clothing and entertainment, namely, acting services and live musical performances. The referenced trademark never appears in the Article, the company says.

Further, Robinhood notes that the plaintiff does not identify a single lost sale or other particular damage resulting from the defendants alleged misconduct, despite the fact that he is required to do so to establish standing under both federal and state law. He fails to plead any injury that is both concrete and particularized, according to the defendants.

Also, according to Robinhood, the plaintiff fails to explain how the Article explicitly misleads consumers. The Complaint is similarly devoid of any facts demonstrating that the Article creates the misimpression that Plaintiff sponsors, endorses, or is affiliated with Defendants—the alleged harms are merely conclusory statements with no factual basis, the defendants argue.

Furthermore, according to Robinhood, the Articles content was newsworthy and provided educational commentary relevant to the investing public, and it is therefore protected by the First Amendment.

Robinhood argues that the article provides news updates on an important matter of public concern (i.e. the stock market), and its noncommercial nature bolsters that protection. Defendants use of the materials at issue is relevant to the topic being discussed—corrections in the stock market. These materials effectively “tee up” the topic, linking the materials and the newsworthy topic in a meaningful and humorous way, Robinhood explains. According to the defendants, their editorial newsletter is entitled to full First Amendment protection.

Finally, Robinhood says the Article does not explicitly mislead consumers, as it does not affirmatively represent that Plaintiff is in any way affiliated with Defendants‘ news reports, and in fact never even mentions Plaintiff’s actual or character name. Therefore, according to Robinhood, no reasonable consumer would interpret the comical nature of the reference as suggesting any such relationship.

Robinhood concludes that “Ice Cube filed this action looking for publicity and without regard for the merits of his claims”.

The lawsuit continues at the California Northern District Court.

--END

Find market trend, trading signals, broker updates, scam alert and more on WikiFX APP!

--Available for both Android and iOS systems--

Android: https://bit.ly/3kyRwgw

iOS: https://bit.ly/wikifxapp-ios