The cusp in the dark matter distribution required to explain the recently found excess in the gamma-ray spectrum at energies of 130 GeV in terms of the dark matter annihilations cannot survive the tidal forces if it is offset by 1.5° from the Galactic center as suggested by observations.From Dmitry Gorbunov, Peter Tinjakov, "On the offset of a DM Cusp and the interpretation of the 130 GeV line as a DM signal" via Tommasso Dorigo's blog.
One of the strongest bits of experimental data favoring WIMP (weakly interacting massive particle) dark matter with particle masses at the electroweak scale is the Fermi line, i.e. 130 GeV photon signals detected by the Fermi Gamma-Ray Space Telescope that have no understood astronomical process as its source.
These signals have been hypothesized by theorists to be evidence of the annihilation of matter and antimatter dark matter particles of about 130 GeV mass with each other. But, even if these signals are evidence of such annihilations, they can only be the dark matter that everyone is looking for as the biggest gap in fundamental physics today if the signals come mostly from the right direction. The latest study indicates that they do not. Thus, the Fermi line grows an ever lengthening list of possible direct detections of dark matter or dark matter annihilation signals that have been ruled out as true dark matter signals.
The Fermi line could still be real; it just can't be dark matter
The study still doesn't tell us if the Fermi line is "real" or just some sort of statistical or systematic error in the observations. So far, no plausible explanation that could explain the Fermi line as an experimental error has been identified.
But, for example, suppose there was a supersymmetric particle with that mass or a second kind of Higgs boson of slightly different mass than the one already discovered, that was highly unstable. If this particle existed, its annihilation could produce this signal in some unknown process, such as some kind of high energy interactions near the Milky Way's central black hole's event horizon, even though such an unstable particle can't be an important source of the phenomena attributed to dark matter.
A true SUSY optimist could see both the Fermi line and the ASM-02 positron excess as signatures of SUSY particle annihilations. But, even for a SUSY optimist, the likelihood that a canonical sparticle or SUSY Higgs boson can provide a dark matter candidate that fits the experimental evidence is rapidly waning.
The best hope in a SUSY theory for a dark matter candidate is now the same as it is in minimal Standard Model extensions - some sort of sterile (i.e. right handed) neutrino with a mass on the other of 2 keV (i.e. warm dark matter). These models are highly constrained and it hasn't been fully established that they can really reproduce all observed dark matter phenomena. But, these particles are the only game in town using the dark matter particle paradigm that hasn't been pretty definitively ruled out by observational evidence to date.
Independent lines of experimental evidence disfavor WIMP dark matter
This isn't too surprising.
Multiple lines of evidence disfavor weakly interacting dark matter particles with masses of 10 GeV or so or more. For example, heavy WIMPs are disfavored by (1) the small scale structure of the universe (i.e. the fact that there aren't enough dwarf satellite galaxies), (2) the exclusion ranges in multiple direct dark matter detection experiments at cross-sections of interactions many orders of magnitude weaker than those of neutrinos, (3) the "cuspy halo" problem (that heavy wimp dark matter doesn't naturally distribute itself in the shapes necessary to match observed galactic rotation curves), and (4) the non-detection of particles in the appropriate mass ranges at particle accelerators like the LHC.
A determination that the directional source of the Fermi line gamma-rays is inconsistent with dark matter just adds one more independent line of experimental data to the others.
While the refutation of the ASM-02 positron excess as a possible dark matter annihilation signal at 300 GeV or more isn't yet complete, the astronomy data problems with cold dark matter apply to particles this heavy with especially great force, and there is other circumstantial evidence (such as the fact that other things we would expect to discovery at the same time as the annihilation of a dark matter particle that heavy) have not been seen. Cosmic rays from quasars continue to be a more plausible source for this signal.
A personal conjecture
For what it is worth, my own intuition, informed by studies that disfavor dark matter models with more than one kind of dark matter particle in any significant frequency, is that a warm dark matter sterile neutrino, if there is one, is not a right handed neutrino in the usual sense, but is instead a singlet particle that is taxonomically part of the gravity sector in a gravi-weak unification theory or some other particle outside the domain of the three Standard Model forces and their interactions, rather than a missing piece within the SU(3)*SU(2)*U(1) group structure of the Standard Model that has almost nothing to do with any Standard Model particle other than the Higgs boson (which might interact with dark matter since it seems to couple to mass).
Also, while warm dark matter is the best prospect in the dark matter paradigm, I believe that it is still hasty to rule out theories outside that paradigm. The best runner up would be some sort of gravity modification, possibly rooted in quantum gravity effects or limitations on the wavelengths of gravity waves as a result of the finite size of the universe. Another would be that the phenomena attributed to dark matter actually consist, at least in part, of multiple kinds of "dim matter" phenomena consisting of ordinary matter, quite possibly maintained in some sort of dynamic equilibrium by ill understood astronomy processes, particularly in galactic clusters and/or galaxy formation, about which we have the least solid understanding.