On January 12, 2026, NYSE American LLC submitted a filing to the Securities and Exchange Commission proposing to amend its Equities Proprietary Market Data Fees by eliminating the Multiple Data Feed Fee for two specific products: NYSE American BBO and NYSE American Trades. This change, effective January 2, 2026, removes a fee that applied to data recipients accessing these feeds in more than two locations. The proposal became immediately effective under Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as it pertains to fees imposed by the exchange. Published in the Federal Register on January 15, 2026, the notice invites public comments until February 5, 2026. This development highlights ongoing adjustments in market data pricing to reflect usage patterns and simplify fee structures, potentially easing administrative burdens for subscribers while maintaining regulatory compliance.
Background on NYSE American and Market Data Fees
NYSE American, formerly known as the American Stock Exchange, operates as a national securities exchange under the oversight of the Securities and Exchange Commission. It provides proprietary market data products, including NYSE American BBO, which offers best bid and offer information, and NYSE American Trades, which delivers last sale data. These products support trading decisions by market participants such as brokers, investors, and data vendors.
The Multiple Data Feed Fee, introduced in prior fee schedules, charged subscribers for receiving the same data feed in more than two physical locations. According to the filing, this fee saw limited application because few recipients chose to access NYSE American BBO or Trades in multiple sites. The exchange's decision to eliminate it stems from a desire to streamline the Fee Schedule, as stated in the purpose section: "this proposed change would improve transparency and simplify the Fee Schedule by removing an underutilized fee."
This move fits into a broader context of exchanges refining data fees amid scrutiny from regulators and industry stakeholders. For instance, similar fee adjustments have occurred across exchanges like NYSE and Nasdaq, often justified by usage data and competitive pressures.
Key Elements of the Proposed Rule Change
The filing invokes Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 19b-4, requiring exchanges to submit proposed rule changes to the SEC for review. NYSE American asserts that the elimination is consistent with Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act, which mandate equitable fee allocation and prohibit unfair discrimination.
In its statutory basis statement, the exchange explains: "The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change to eliminate the Multiple Data Feed Fee with respect to the NYSE American BBO and NYSE American Trades data feeds is reasonable because few data subscribers have opted to take these data feeds in multiple locations, resulting in limited application of this fee." This rationale emphasizes practicality, noting that the fee's removal would not disadvantage any subscribers since it applies uniformly.
No comments were received prior to filing, and the change qualifies for immediate effectiveness as a fee-related adjustment under Rule 19b-4(f)(2). This expedited process allows implementation without prior approval, though the SEC retains authority to suspend it within 60 days if deemed necessary for investor protection.
Legal and Regulatory Context
The proposal aligns with precedents under the Securities Exchange Act, particularly cases emphasizing fair and reasonable exchange fees. For example, in SEC v. NetCoalition (2010), the D.C. Circuit Court upheld the SEC's authority to review market data fees for reasonableness, stressing competition's role in pricing. NYSE American's filing echoes this by arguing the change promotes investor protection through a more transparent fee structure.
Politically, exchanges face pressure from market participants advocating for lower data costs, as seen in industry groups like the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association pushing for fee reforms. Regulators, including the SEC, have encouraged exchanges to justify fees based on costs and usage, as outlined in the 2020 Market Data Infrastructure Rule, which aimed to enhance competition in data dissemination.
From a subscriber perspective, eliminating the fee could reduce costs for firms with distributed operations, though its limited prior use suggests minimal broad impact. Exchanges view such changes as ways to remain competitive against alternatives like consolidated tape data from the Securities Information Processor.
Implications for Market Participants
Short-term effects include simplified billing for the handful of affected subscribers, potentially encouraging wider adoption of NYSE American's data products. Data vendors and broker-dealers may find the revised Fee Schedule easier to navigate, reducing compliance overhead.
Longer-term, this could signal a trend toward usage-based pricing across exchanges, influencing how proprietary data is valued. If successful, it might prompt similar eliminations for other underutilized fees, fostering a more dynamic market data ecosystem. However, critics might argue that fee reductions could pressure exchanges to offset revenues elsewhere, potentially leading to increases in other areas.
Different perspectives emerge: Proponents, including exchange operators, see it as a step toward efficiency, while skeptics among data users might question whether broader reforms are needed to address overall data costs. Regulators balance these views by ensuring changes do not unfairly burden competition.
In conclusion, NYSE American's elimination of the Multiple Data Feed Fee for BBO and Trades products represents a targeted effort to refine its pricing model based on empirical usage. Key takeaways include enhanced fee transparency and alignment with statutory requirements. Looking ahead, potential next steps involve monitoring public comments submitted by February 5, 2026, and any SEC actions within the 60-day review period. Ongoing debates may focus on whether such incremental changes sufficiently address calls for comprehensive market data reform, with challenges including balancing exchange revenues against affordable access for all market participants. Future trajectories could involve further SEC guidance on fee justifications or industry-wide standardization efforts.
