Robinhood refuses AMC's request to stop trading stock tokens, citing legal confidence and industry support.
Summary
- Robinhood has rejected AMC's request to halt trading of its stock-related tokens.
- Legal experts suggest AMC's claims may revolve around trademark issues and potential confusion for buyers.
- Some attorneys argue that stock tokens could improve access to U.S. markets.
In a decisive move, Robinhood has refused AMC Entertainment’s demand to stop trading tokens linked to its shares. The brokerage’s chief legal officer has challenged AMC to pursue its legal threats, indicating confidence in their position.
Dan Gallagher, Robinhood’s chief legal, compliance, and corporate affairs officer, responded to AMC CEO Adam Aron on X, saying, “Send your lawyers and we’ll educate them.” He humorously referenced a typo in Aron’s cease-and-desist request, asserting that Robinhood is well-versed in U.S. securities laws and would not be deterred.
Robinhood CEO Vlad Tenev echoed Gallagher’s sentiments, stating, “We stand behind Stock Tokens.” AMC's Aron has accused Robinhood of offering a product that resembles AMC stock without complying with U.S. securities regulations, raising concerns about shareholder rights and corporate authority over capital raising.
“I hereby call on you and Robinhood to voluntarily CEASE AND DECIST the trading of AMC stock tokens,” Aron stated, warning that AMC's legal counsel has been engaged to assess potential actions against Robinhood.
Tokens represent shares in publicly traded companies on a blockchain and have recently seen a surge in popularity, with trading volumes reaching $15.1 billion in the first quarter of 2026, according to CoinGecko. Robinhood’s disclosures indicate these tokens are classified as debt securities issued by Robinhood Assets (Jersey) Limited, allowing price exposure without granting ownership rights to underlying shares.
Legal expert Ashley Ebersole noted that pursuing a U.S. securities law claim may be challenging due to the offshore nature of the tokens and their absence from Robinhood’s U.S. platform. He suggested that AMC could argue misuse of its trademark or claim the tokens create a misleading association with the company.
Miami-based attorney Russell Klein added that clear disclosures could limit AMC’s potential claims, emphasizing that if Robinhood clarifies the tokens are not actual shares, AMC may have limited legal recourse. He argued that AMC lacks the rights to prevent third parties from creating financial products linked to its stock.
Daniel Lasko, general counsel at Arcus, also questioned AMC’s ability to block such financial products, comparing the situation to companies whose shares are included in ETFs. He believes that tokenized stocks could actually attract more international investment in U.S. markets.
Robinhood began offering tokenized stock trading for European customers last summer. This dispute with AMC highlights the ongoing tension between traditional corporations and innovative financial products in the growing landscape of tokenized trading.
