Not the same thing as an actual law.
The folks formerly suing Barclays for ripping them off vis-à-vis dark pools are going to have to do something other than put a big stack of Flash Boys (now in paperback with a new afterword!) in the jury box.
Judge Jesse M. Furman said in his opinion that the plaintiffs failed to show their complaints were “legally sufficient.” The plaintiffs may opt to amend their complaint and refile, the judge said....
Other lawsuits inspired by the book have failed. In April, another Southern District of New York judge dismissed three federal class-action lawsuits against stock exchanges.
The plaintiffs, who are free to refile their complaint if they can find some evidence outside of the published works of M. Lewis, accused Barclays and American stock exchanges of giving high-frequency traders unfair advantages in the bank’s dark pool. This may be difficult to prove, as everyone who uses dark pools is probably getting screwed.
Orders at times were getting filled at prices that were “suboptimal” in some dark pools, meaning they could potentially have gotten a better result if a trade was carried out more quickly.
The researchers said costs associated with weak infrastructure and slow processing were at times as much as 50 times higher than cases in which fast traders are able to find small opportunities to buy or sell stocks at better prices than other investors relying on slower data feeds.