The EU consolidated tape: how MiFIR amendments change market data sourcing

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified legal professional for advice specific to your situation.

Why the MiFIR review matters for how firms source market data

Market data in EU capital markets has never been cheap, straightforward, or consistent across venues. Trading firms, asset managers, and fintech infrastructure providers have spent years navigating a fragmented landscape where pre-trade and post-trade data was sourced separately from dozens of trading venues under licensing terms that varied widely and were frequently described by market participants as opaque and difficult to compare.

Regulation (EU) 2024/791, published in the Official Journal on 8 March 2024 and entering into force on 28 March 2024, amends the original Markets in Financial Instruments Regulation (MiFIR, CELEX: 32014R0600) with a remit that extends well beyond transparency rules. The amendment, commonly referred to as the MiFIR review, restructures three things that directly affect how trading firms access and pay for market data: the consolidated tape framework, the rules on reasonable commercial basis pricing, and the transaction reporting scope for derivatives.

Each of these changes operates on a different timeline and has a different set of technical standards sitting behind it. Understanding the structure is the precondition for tracking what has already applied and what is still being implemented.

The consolidated tape: from voluntary framework to mandatory infrastructure

The original MiFIR included a framework for consolidated tape providers but left data contribution voluntary. No entity applied for authorisation. ESMA identified the core problems in a 2019 report: no mechanism to compel trading venues and approved publication arrangements (APAs) to contribute data, insufficient data quality harmonisation to make consolidation viable, and no commercial incentive to run a tape at a sustainable cost.

The MiFIR review addresses all three directly.

Mandatory data contribution

Under the amended framework, trading venues and APAs are now required to transmit data to the CTP for their asset class. The contribution is not optional. Data must be transmitted as close to real time as technically possible, in a harmonised format, using a high-quality transmission protocol. Data contributors do not receive payment for transmitting the data itself; the revenue redistribution mechanisms discussed below are the only commercial consideration available to them in return for contributing.

There is a limited opt-out for small trading venues. An investment firm operating an SME growth market, or a market operator whose annual trading volume of shares represents 1% or less of the annual trading volume in the Union, is not required to contribute to the equity tape under certain conditions: it must not be part of a group with a larger venue exceeding the 1% threshold, or the venue must account for more than 85% of the annual trading volume of the shares initially admitted to trading on that venue. These venues can choose to opt in, and if they do, that decision is irrevocable.

One CTP per asset class, selected by ESMA

The revised MiFIR establishes that ESMA selects a single entity per asset class through a competitive tender process, authorises it, and supervises it directly. Each appointment runs for five years. The selection process is run under EU procurement rules, with ESMA evaluating candidates on technical capability, governance, data quality methodology, fee structure, licensing simplicity, resilience, and energy efficiency.

Three selection procedures were mandated, in sequence: bonds first, then equities (shares and ETFs), then OTC derivatives.

The bond CTP selection procedure was launched on 3 January 2025. On 3 July 2025, ESMA announced that Ediphy (fairCT) had been selected as the most suitable applicant for operating the consolidated tape for bonds. The authorisation process is ongoing. Once authorised, fairCT will operate the bond tape under ESMA’s direct supervision.

The equity CTP selection procedure was launched on 20 June 2025. On 19 December 2025, ESMA announced that EuroCTP had been selected for shares and ETFs.

The OTC derivatives CTP selection procedure was launched on 5 January 2026. On 6 July 2026, ESMA announced that Etrading Software (Netherlands) B.V. had been selected for OTC derivatives.

In June 2025, the European Commission adopted the technical standards for the establishment of EU CTPs. Those standards were published in the Official Journal on 3 November 2025.

What the consolidated tape actually provides

The regulation defines “core market data” with specificity. For shares and ETFs, the CTP disseminates the European best bid and offer with corresponding volume, transaction price and volume, applicable waivers and deferrals, standardised instrument identifiers, and timestamp data covering execution, order entry, and dissemination. Critically, when disseminating the European best bid and offer for shares and ETFs, the CTP does not publish the market identifier code of the venue. This is a deliberate design choice intended to reduce the information advantage currently held by firms that subscribe to direct venue feeds.

For bonds, the tape covers post-trade data: transaction price and quantity, venue identifier, standardised instrument identifier, and timestamp data. Pre-trade data is not included for bonds.

For OTC derivatives within scope of the new transparency regime, the tape covers post-trade data including identifying reference data based on a globally agreed unique product identifier.

Retail investors, academics, civil society organisations, and competent authorities receive access to core market data and regulatory data free of charge. Commercial users pay fees set under the reasonable commercial basis framework.

Revenue redistribution for equities

The equity CTP is required to redistribute part of its revenue to data contributors meeting one or more criteria. Small trading venues (those at or below the 1% annual trading volume threshold) receive the highest weighting. Venues that provided initial admission to trading of shares or ETFs on or after 27 March 2019 receive the second highest. Trading executed on pre-trade transparent order books, not subject to a waiver, receives the lowest weighting. The precise weightings are specified in the RTS adopted pursuant to Article 27h(8) of amended MiFIR. The bond CTP may redistribute revenue to data contributors but is not required to.

Reasonable commercial basis: from guidelines to binding rules

Under the original MiFIR, the obligation to make market data available on a reasonable commercial basis was stated in general terms. ESMA issued guidelines on the concept in August 2021, but guidelines are not binding. Market participants continued to report that data pricing was difficult to understand, fees were set on a value-to-user basis rather than a cost basis, and contractual terms were onerous.

The MiFIR review converts the reasonable commercial basis obligation into hard law and mandates ESMA to develop binding regulatory technical standards specifying how it applies. Those standards were adopted as Commission Delegated Regulation C(2025) 3103, adopted on 12 June 2025 and published in the Official Journal on 3 November 2025.

The cost-plus pricing model

The delegated regulation establishes that fees for market data must be set on a cost-plus basis. The “total costs” that form the basis of the calculation are defined precisely: infrastructure costs, connectivity costs, personnel costs, financial costs including depreciation and cost of capital, and other administrative costs directly related to producing and disseminating market data. Costs shared with other services must be apportioned according to a documented methodology, reviewed annually.

The margin added to those costs must not be disproportionate relative to the total costs and must be reasonably comparable to the operating profit of the market data provider’s overall business. Fees structured on the basis of the value the data represents to individual users are no longer permissible. Client categorisation is permitted, with differential fees allowed between categories, but a client can only belong to one category, and the margin applied within a category must be consistent across all clients in it.

This is a structural shift for venues that have historically offered multiple overlapping licensing tiers based on firm type, use case, and user count simultaneously. The regulation prohibits charging a client through multiple overlapping categories for the same data.

Contractual protections

The delegated regulation introduces enforceable contractual requirements that address practices market participants have consistently raised as problematic. Market data must be offered unbundled from other services. Per-client fee structures must be available on request to avoid multiple billing when data is sourced via redistribution chains. Unilateral changes to fees or conditions must be notified at least 90 days in advance, and the client must have the right to exit without penalty if the change worsens their position.

Audits of market data usage may only be conducted where there are specific and credible indications of a potential infringement that occurred within five years of the audit notification. Penalties for infringement must be proportionate and cannot exceed the amount the client would have paid in case of compliance. Requests for data deletion at contract termination are not a permitted contractual provision.

For market operators, investment firms operating trading venues, APAs, and systematic internalisers already authorised before the delegated regulation enters into force, a nine-month transition period applies before the new rules become binding on existing agreements. No transition period is available for CTPs, since none were authorised and operational when the regulation was adopted.

Transaction reporting: a narrower but cleaner scope for OTC derivatives

The transaction reporting obligation under Article 26 of MiFIR previously applied to all financial instruments admitted to trading on a trading venue, and where the underlying was traded on a trading venue. For OTC derivatives, the concept of “traded on a trading venue” created compliance complexity because many OTC derivatives are not meaningfully tied to a single trading venue in the way equity instruments are.

The MiFIR review amends the scope. For OTC derivatives, the revised obligation applies where the derivative falls within the new transparency scope established under Article 8a of amended MiFIR. Article 8a covers OTC derivatives denominated in euro, Japanese yen, US dollars, or sterling that are subject to the clearing obligation, are centrally cleared, and are interest rate derivatives with standardised tenors (1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 10, 12, 15, 20, 25, or 30 years). Single-name credit default swaps referencing a global systemically important bank, and CDS indices comprising such banks, are also included where centrally cleared.

OTC derivatives executed off venue and outside this transparency scope are reported only where the underlying is traded on a trading venue or is an index or basket of exchange-traded instruments.

For identifying reference data on OTC derivatives, the regulation moves away from the ISIN toward a globally agreed unique product identifier. The Commission was empowered to adopt a delegated act specifying the applicable identifier by 29 June 2024, with the ISO 4914 Unique Product Identifier (UPI) identified as the expected approach. The ESMA Final Report on derivatives transparency and OTC derivatives tape was published on 15 December 2025, covering the detailed technical standards for this scope.

The RTS on transaction reporting formats under the revised Article 26 was mandated for submission by 29 September 2025. ESMA is required to take into account consistency with EMIR and SFTR reporting when developing those standards, reflecting a long-standing industry concern that duplicative reporting requirements under different frameworks create unnecessary cost without improving data quality. An ESMA report on the feasibility of further integration between the MiFIR, EMIR, and SFTR reporting frameworks is due to the Commission by 29 March 2028.

The designated publishing entity regime

A less-discussed structural change in the MiFIR review addresses a problem that had developed in the market. Under the pre-amendment framework, where one party to a transaction was a systematic internaliser, that party was required to report the trade through an APA. This led many investment firms to opt into the systematic internaliser status primarily for reporting purposes, even when they were not dealing on their own account systematically. The compliance burden of SI status was disproportionate to what the firm was actually doing.

The review introduces the concept of a “designated publishing entity,” which allows an investment firm to be responsible for making transactions public through an APA without needing to hold SI status. Competent authorities grant DPE status on request for specific classes of financial instrument. ESMA maintains a public register of DPEs by instrument class. This change simplifies the reporting infrastructure for firms that were maintaining SI status for post-trade transparency purposes only.

Payment for order flow: prohibited from June 2026

The MiFIR review includes a prohibition on payment for order flow. Investment firms acting on behalf of retail clients or professional clients who have opted into the professional client regime may not receive any fee, commission, or non-monetary benefit from a third party for routing client orders to a particular execution venue.

Member states in which PFOF was already an established practice before 28 March 2024 were permitted to exempt domestic investment firms until 30 June 2026. That transitional window has now closed. ESMA maintains a public list of member states that used the exemption.

What the timeline looks like across the RTS pipeline

The MiFIR review is a framework regulation, and the compliance detail lives in the technical standards. The headline obligations are clear. The operational requirements depend on RTS that have been arriving in stages since the regulation entered into force.

The following summarises the key milestones:

For firms currently sourcing market data from EU trading venues, APAs, or systematic internalisers, the nine-month transition on the reasonable commercial basis delegated regulation is the most operationally immediate item. Existing licensing agreements will need to be reviewed against the new cost-basis requirements, unbundling obligations, and contractual protections before the transition period expires.

For firms in scope for the revised OTC derivatives transaction reporting scope, the practical compliance requirement depends on the adopted RTS under Article 26, which ESMA was required to submit by September 2025. Firms should confirm their reporting scope against the new transparency criteria under Article 8a and ensure their reporting infrastructure supports the UPI-based identifier for OTC derivatives.

For firms that were relying on PFOF arrangements, the June 2026 deadline has passed. Best execution documentation needs to reflect that order routing decisions are made solely on execution quality grounds.

The monitoring challenge this creates

The MiFIR review illustrates a pattern that applies across EU financial regulation: the level 1 text sets the structure, but the level 2 standards set the compliance requirement. The bond CTP is selected but not yet authorised. The equity and OTC derivatives CTPs have been selected but are in earlier stages of their authorisation processes. The data format standards, ISO 20022 messages for CTP input and output, and the transaction reporting RTS are all at different points in their development and adoption cycles.

Tracking which of these standards have been adopted, published, and when they apply is not an optional activity for compliance teams. A firm that reviewed the MiFIR review text in March 2024 and has not tracked the delegated regulations and RTS since has an incomplete picture of its current obligations.

For an explanation of how regulations, directives, and technical standards interact in the EU legislative framework, see how EU financial regulation actually works. For context on MiFID II and MiFIR as the parent framework, see EU financial regulation in 2026.

Forseti monitors MiFIR amendments, RTS publications, and CTP authorisation developments continuously, anchored to verified official sources including EUR-Lex and ESMA publications. Start for free.