USD
CFTC Seeks Dismissal of CME Crypto Perpetual Futures Lawsuit
Regulator says CME cannot show financial injury from Kalshi approval
TL;DR
- The CFTC asked a federal court to dismiss CME Group’s challenge to its treatment of cryptocurrency perpetual futures.
- The regulator says CME lacks standing because it can list the same products and has not plausibly shown competitive harm.
- CME argues the CFTC improperly classified the contracts and opened its retail futures market to new competitors.
Trade smarter on Jupiter, Solana’s leading DEX built for fast execution and deep liquidity.
Swap tokens at competitive rates, route across multiple liquidity sources automatically, and access perpetuals, DCA, and advanced trading tools — all in one place!
The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission has asked a federal court to dismiss CME Group’s lawsuit challenging the agency’s authorization of cryptocurrency perpetual futures, arguing that CME cannot show it suffered financial injury and remains free to list the same type of contracts itself.
The CFTC filed its dismissal motion on September 2, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia and also requested an oral hearing. The regulator characterized CME’s competitive-injury claims as insufficient to establish legal standing, saying access to cryptocurrency perpetual futures is not restricted to Kalshi or another favored venue.
“This lawsuit is much ado about nothing,” the CFTC said in the filing. “CME claims to be injured by a CFTC order authorizing ’perpetual futures contracts’ on digital assets like bitcoin [...] as well as a policy statement concerning perpetual futures more generally [...] CME does not argue that it could not list this same type of futures contract.”
The CFTC said CME could not make a “concrete showing that it is in fact likely to suffer financial injury,” adding that “any CFTC-registered exchange can list perpetual futures on digital assets.”
The motion added: “[...] CME has not alleged, and cannot plausibly allege, that it suffered a financial injury from the CFTC’s authorization of perpetual futures contracts. CME therefore lacks standing.”
CME challenges treatment of perpetual contracts
CME filed its lawsuit on June 18, 2026, following a May 29, 2026 CFTC order approving Kalshi’s bitcoin perpetual futures contract and a broader position allowing other designated contract markets, or DCMs, to list similar products as futures. The CFTC also issued a no-action position covering similar products on Coinbase.
CME argued that the products should instead be treated as swaps under the Commodity Exchange Act and Dodd-Frank and alleged that the CFTC circumvented applicable regulatory requirements in approving them as futures. CME’s complaint also argued that CFTC Chair Michael Selig acted without a full panel of five commissioners when advancing the agency’s approach to the products.
The two legal arguments focus on both product classification and regulatory procedure. CME contends that the CFTC’s treatment of perpetual contracts improperly allowed additional venues to compete in a market where CME already offers retail futures products.
“In short, by authorizing Kalshi and others to enter the derivatives marketplace by listing similar cryptocurrency perpetuals as futures, the CFTC ushered new entrants into CME’s retail futures market that seek to compete with CME for retail customers,” CME said in its complaint.
The CFTC disputes that this competition amounts to an injury caused by the agency. Its dismissal motion says CME can offer the same perpetual futures as Kalshi and notes that CME has publicly said its customers are not requesting those products.
The regulator also cited CME trading activity to challenge the claimed economic harm. CME’s monthly volumes for bitcoin- and ether-related futures were higher in June and August than in May, when the challenged order was issued.
“Thus, even if CME’s vague assertions of competitive injury had any substance, those injuries are entirely self-inflicted and based on CME’s refusal to list perpetual futures for trading,” the CFTC said.
CFTC says reclassification would not remove competition
The CFTC also argued that CME’s proposed remedy would not eliminate the competition identified in its lawsuit. According to the regulator, Kalshi and other DCMs could continue offering perpetual contracts even if the products were reclassified as swaps rather than futures.
The agency said CME therefore would not recover from “any purported injury” through reclassification. It also argued that the regulatory and tax differences between futures and swaps were not sufficient to make CME’s competitive-injury allegations plausible.
The CFTC tied its position to the broader purposes of the Commodity Exchange Act, saying Congress structured the law around self-regulation, market integrity and “responsible innovation and fair competition among boards of trade.”
The regulator argued that CME’s attempt to use litigation to restrict competing products “turns that purpose on its head.”
The dismissal motion follows an already contentious response from the CFTC to CME’s original lawsuit. A CFTC spokesperson previously accused CME of engaging in “lawfare,” while the agency called the June complaint “frivolous.”
Selig and the CFTC requested an oral hearing on the dismissal motion. As of September 3, 2026, a hearing had not been scheduled on the public docket.
CME’s opposition to the motion is due October 2, 2026. The court had not ruled on the CFTC’s dismissal request at the time covered by the supplied information.
This article has been refined and enhanced by ChatGPT.
