Robinhood agreed to a proposed $2 million class action settlement over claims that some customers received worse prices on certain stock market orders because of how Robinhood routed and executed those orders between September 1, 2016 and September 1, 2018. The dispute centers on the National Best Bid and Offer (NBBO), which is essentially the best publicly displayed buy and sell price available across exchanges at a given moment. Plaintiffs allege that for some market buy orders, customers paid more than the NBBO offer at the time the order was routed, and for some market sell orders, they received less than the NBBO bid—suggesting inferior execution quality for trades that, in theory, should be protected from avoidable price slippage during normal market hours. The lawsuit was filed because investors claim Robinhood’s disclosures and practices around payment for order flow (PFOF)—where a broker may receive compensation for sending customer orders to particular market makers—misled users and contributed to weaker “price improvement” than they should have received. While Robinhood denies wrongdoing and the court has not ruled on the merits, the settlement is significant because it underscores how “commission-free” trading can still carry hidden costs through execution quality, and it puts real money behind the idea that best execution is not just a slogan but a measurable obligation. For eligible customers whose calculated “qualifying difference” exceeds $5, payments are expected to be distributed pro rata (with an estimated average around $17.60), often automatically credited to active accounts unless a claimant opts for an ACH payment elsewhere. More broadly, this case fits into a larger wave of scrutiny and litigation around retail trade execution, PFOF, and whether brokers’ routing incentives conflict with customers’ interest in getting the best reasonably available price. Industry rules require broker-dealers to seek “best execution” under FINRA guidance and SEC oversight, and NBBO-related execution benchmarks and order-routing disclosures (such as SEC Rule 606 reports) are designed to let regulators and the public evaluate routing practices and outcomes. Similar allegations have surfaced across the brokerage industry as retail trading surged, and settlements like this one can pressure firms to improve routing transparency, tighten execution monitoring, and make clearer to everyday investors that the true cost of a trade is not only the stated commission but also the price you actually get when your order hits the market