[Closi]

The issue is both - if the information was non-public (which it was) then it can’t be legally traded on, and this was being sold as data to be traded on which secretly contained non-public market sensitive information.

I.e. insider trading

[wyager]

> both - if the information was non-public (which it was) then it can’t be legally traded on

That’s not how insider trading law works in the US. In fact, almost no country works this way, with a few exceptions like France. Insider trading laws in the US are mostly specified in terms of fiduciary obligations.

I suggest subscribing to Matt Levine’s excellent Money Stuff column. He covers this stuff constantly, including lots of court cases straddling the border of what defines insider trading.

[Closi]

That's the book definition of insider trading. What's your definition?

[1123581321]

That's not the definition. Insider trading non-public information also needs to be material, and not given or received by someone in breach of duty to the company or stolen from the company.

Your definition would mean a cab driver would be insider trading if he overheard random speculation about a company that turned out to be true--that's not illegal. However, if the cab driver's passenger said, "hey, I'm an executive at at XYZ and I saw that we're acquiring FGH," that is insider trading three ways: the driver believed they were receiving confidential information, the executive breached his duty, and the executive caused stolen information to be traded. And an acquisition would of course meet the material test.