undefined | Better HN

0 pointswyager4y ago0 comments

In this case, the issue would not be that the information is private, but that App Annie had a contractual fiduciary obligation to its customers which it violated.

0 comments

Closi4y ago

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

wyagerOP4y ago

> 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.

Closi4y ago

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

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

Closi4y ago

I.e. insider trading

wyagerOP4y ago

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

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.

Closi4y ago

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

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse