"Accessible" does not mean "public" when it comes to inside information

If you work in capital markets, compliance or securities law, this one matters. On 16 April 2026, the European Court of Justice ruled in Brännelius (C-229/24) on a deceptively simple question with far-reaching implications: when exactly does inside information stop being inside information? 

Here's what happened: A Swedish municipal company told a handful of bidders they'd lost a public contract. Two shareholders in the losing company caught wind through a tip and sold their shares — minutes before a press release tanked the stock price. Their defense? The information was already "public" under Sweden's open-access laws. 

The Court wasn't buying it. Three critical takeaways:

• Telling a small group doesn't make it public. Notifying a limited circle of recipients is not non-discriminatory disclosure.
• "Available on request" isn't enough. Even if anyone could ask for the information under national law, that doesn't satisfy EU market abuse standards.
• The only standard that counts: disclosure under Article 17 MAR and Implementing Regulation 2016/1055 — simultaneous, non-discriminatory, and free to the widest possible public in the EU. 

The Court has drawn a clear and consequential line. Organizations that equate "accessible" with "public" in their compliance frameworks should revisit that assumption.