Nasdaq is updating its Global Data Agreement, known as the GDA. This revised agreement, version 5.0, aims to make the contract clearer and easier to use. The changes include combining the GDA Summary and Terms and Conditions into a single document and reorganizing its sections for better readability. Specific requirements related to MiFID II and MiFIR will now be in a new appendix.

The update also introduces improvements to how market information is ordered. A more streamlined process is being implemented, and affiliates will now be able to order and be billed directly by Nasdaq. The agreement will also include terms for distributors to access information on a trial basis. Definitions within the GDA are being revised to simplify the language and align with current ordering practices and the Nasdaq Rulebook. Additionally, the audit and compliance process is being moved to a separate, streamlined Compliance Policy.

These changes are being made in accordance with regulations and the Nasdaq Rulebook. The updated GDA will become effective on November 13, 2025. Distributors who have previously signed the GDA do not need to sign the new version. The compliance review process is now detailed in the updated Compliance Policy, which includes changes to terminology, clarifies liability for non-compliance, and outlines the review process responsibilities. For more information, clients can contact Nasdaq Investment Intelligence.

Original article

Actionable Information: There is no actionable information for a "normal person" in this article. The information pertains to a specific business agreement (Nasdaq's Global Data Agreement) and its updates, which would only be relevant to clients and distributors of Nasdaq's data services.

Educational Depth: The article provides some educational depth by explaining *what* is changing in the GDA and *why* (to make it clearer, easier to use, and compliant with regulations). It touches on the reorganization of sections, the addition of an appendix for MiFID II/MiFIR, streamlined ordering processes, and the relocation of audit/compliance to a separate policy. However, it doesn't delve into the specifics of *how* these changes will impact users or the underlying reasons for the regulatory compliance in detail.

Personal Relevance: This article has very low personal relevance for a typical individual. Its content is highly specialized and directly relates to business-to-business agreements within the financial data industry. It does not affect personal finances, daily life, safety, or general well-being for the average person.

Public Service Function: The article does not serve a public service function in the traditional sense. It is an announcement of a business update, not a warning, safety advice, or emergency contact information. While it informs existing clients about changes, it doesn't offer broad public benefit.

Practicality of Advice: There is no advice given in this article that a normal person could implement. The "advice" is directed at specific business entities that are already involved with Nasdaq's data services.

Long-Term Impact: For those directly affected (Nasdaq clients and distributors), the changes may have a long-term impact on how they access and use market data, potentially simplifying processes. However, for the general public, there is no discernible long-term impact.

Emotional or Psychological Impact: This article is unlikely to have any significant emotional or psychological impact on a normal person. It is purely informational regarding a business contract.

Clickbait or Ad-Driven Words: The article does not use clickbait or ad-driven language. It is a straightforward announcement of a business update.

Missed Chances to Teach or Guide: The article misses opportunities to provide more value. For instance, it could have included a link to the new GDA or the Compliance Policy for those who need to review them. It could also have provided a brief explanation of what MiFID II and MiFIR are, as these are mentioned as key regulatory drivers. For a normal person seeking to understand the financial data landscape, it could have offered resources on how to learn more about market data agreements or financial regulations.

The described changes to the Global Data Agreement, while presented as streamlining and clarification, represent a further detachment of essential functions from the local community and family unit. The consolidation of terms and the creation of new appendices, while seemingly administrative, can obscure the practical implications of agreements that govern the flow of information vital to local commerce and survival.

The introduction of a more streamlined process for ordering market information, with affiliates able to order and be billed directly by a distant entity, weakens the direct, personal responsibility and trust that should exist between neighbors and within local economic networks. This shift encourages a reliance on impersonal, centralized systems, potentially diminishing the need for local knowledge sharing and mutual support. When economic interactions become mediated by distant, abstract agreements, the bonds of trust and reciprocal obligation that have historically sustained communities are eroded.

Furthermore, the move of audit and compliance processes to a separate, streamlined policy, and the clarification of liability for non-compliance, signal a reliance on external enforcement rather than the internal moral compass and accountability that bind families and clans. This externalization of responsibility can weaken the natural duties of individuals to uphold community standards and protect kin. It suggests that adherence to rules is driven by fear of distant penalties rather than by a commitment to the well-being of the community and the preservation of its resources.

The emphasis on "regulations" and a "Rulebook" over local customs and the wisdom of elders indicates a prioritization of abstract, imposed order over the organic, trust-based systems that have ensured the survival of peoples for generations. This can lead to a weakening of the natural duties of fathers, mothers, and extended kin to raise children and care for elders, as responsibilities are increasingly shifted to these distant, impersonal authorities.

The consequence of these shifts, if allowed to spread unchecked, is the further fracturing of family cohesion. Children may grow up in an environment where personal duty and local accountability are devalued, replaced by a reliance on external mandates. This can lead to a diminished sense of responsibility towards kin and community, impacting the care of elders and the nurturing of the next generation. Trust within local relationships will erode as interactions become increasingly mediated by impersonal agreements and distant authorities. The stewardship of the land, which is intrinsically linked to the long-term survival and well-being of the community, may suffer as local knowledge and responsibility are supplanted by abstract rules. The continuity of the people, dependent on strong family units and a shared sense of duty, will be jeopardized.

The text uses positive words to describe the changes. It says the agreement is "clearer and easier to use" and that sections are "reorganized for better readability." This makes the update sound good without giving specific details about potential downsides. It helps Nasdaq by making their changes seem helpful and simple.

The text uses passive voice to describe actions, which hides who is responsible. For example, "Specific requirements related to MiFID II and MiFIR will now be in a new appendix." This doesn't say who put them there or why. It makes the changes seem like they just happened, rather than being decided by people.

The text mentions that "Distributors who have previously signed the GDA do not need to sign the new version." This sounds like a benefit for distributors. However, it doesn't explain if this is because the old agreement still covers them or if they are being exempted from the new terms. It hides what happens to these distributors.

The text states that "These changes are being made in accordance with regulations and the Nasdaq Rulebook." This suggests the changes are necessary and official. It presents the changes as following rules, which makes them seem fair and unavoidable. This helps Nasdaq by showing they are following proper procedures.

The text conveys a sense of purposefulness and efficiency through its focus on updating the Global Data Agreement (GDA). This is evident in phrases like "aims to make the contract clearer and easier to use" and "reorganizing its sections for better readability." The purpose of this purposeful tone is to assure clients that Nasdaq is proactively working to improve their experience and make interactions smoother. This builds trust by showing a commitment to client needs. The writer persuades the reader by highlighting these improvements, suggesting that the update is beneficial and designed to simplify processes, thereby encouraging acceptance of the changes.

A feeling of clarity and orderliness is also present, particularly in the description of combining documents and reorganizing sections. The mention of a "new appendix" for specific requirements and a "separate, streamlined Compliance Policy" reinforces this. This tone aims to reduce any potential anxiety or confusion associated with contract updates. By emphasizing simplification and better organization, Nasdaq seeks to reassure clients that the changes are well-thought-out and will lead to a more manageable system. This approach helps guide the reader's reaction by fostering a sense of confidence in Nasdaq's management of its agreements.

The text also communicates a sense of progress and modernization. Phrases like "introduces improvements" and "align with current ordering practices" suggest that Nasdaq is keeping pace with industry standards and client expectations. This tone is used to inspire a positive outlook on the update, framing it as a step forward rather than a disruption. The writer uses the repetition of the idea of improvement and streamlining to emphasize the positive nature of the changes, making the overall message more persuasive by presenting the update as a natural and beneficial evolution. The direct mention of a future effective date also creates a sense of anticipation and forward movement.