I investigate the liabilities of broker-dealers when providing security recommendations from the arbitration of investor claims. I classify the securities at issue as either opaque or non-opaque depending on the difficulty to evaluate the securities and therefore the potential for investor harm. I find that investor awards are more positive for claims involving opaque securities, and that the more positive awards relate to investor assertions of a fiduciary duty violation and to investor assertions of a suitability violation. I also find that the length of the arbitration, a measure of the cost of arbitration and a proxy for the difficulty of the two parties to directly settle the dispute, are greater for these claims. Overall, the results indicate that broker-dealers can have additional liabilities when recommending opaque securities. The results illustrate the potential significance of the securities regulatory regimes as a determinant of investment advice.