preferred on
Points of Focus
- The CFTC said CME cannot prove Kalshi’s Bitcoin perpetuals caused competitive harm.
- CME argues perpetual contracts should legally be classified as swaps instead.
- The court fight could shape how US exchanges list crypto perpetual products.
The US Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) is asking a federal court to dismiss CME Group’s lawsuit over its approval of Kalshi’s Bitcoin (BTC) perpetual futures, arguing that CME is trying to block competition rather than remedy a genuine legal injury.
The CFTC filed its motion on Sept. 2 in the US District Court for the District of Columbia, calling the case “much ado about nothing.” The regulator said CME lacked standing because, as a designated contract market itself, it is free to seek approval for the same type of perpetual futures product.
CFTC Moves to Dismiss CME Lawsuit Over Crypto Perpetual Futures
The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission has asked a federal court to dismiss CME’s lawsuit challenging its treatment of crypto perpetual contracts as futures. The CFTC argues that CME lacks standing because… pic.twitter.com/qhDBTq500T
— Wu Blockchain (@WuBlockchain) September 3, 2026
The dispute began after the CFTC approved KalshiEX’s BTCPERP contract on May 29. The product references Bitcoin’s spot price but, unlike conventional futures, has no fixed expiration date. Instead, periodic funding payments between long and short positions are designed to keep the contract close to Bitcoin’s underlying market price.
CME says Kalshi received an unfair regulatory advantage
CME sued the CFTC on June 18, arguing that Bitcoin perpetuals should be classified as swaps under the Commodity Exchange Act and Dodd-Frank, not futures.
Its complaint says the CFTC effectively bypassed the statutory framework Congress created for swaps by approving Kalshi’s product as a futures contract.
CME also argues that Kalshi’s entry creates direct competition for products such as its Micro Bitcoin futures, which have an expiration date and were designed partly for retail traders seeking smaller Bitcoin exposure. CME has also expanded into Micro Ether (ETH), Solana (SOL), XRP (XRP), Chainlink (LINK), and Sui (SUI) futures.
The lawsuit asks the court to vacate both Kalshi’s approval and the CFTC’s broader policy allowing similar digital-asset perpetuals to be considered futures.
CFTC says CME can simply launch its own perpetual
The regulator’s response attacks CME’s competitive-injury argument.
According to the CFTC, CME cannot claim that Kalshi’s product damages its business while simultaneously choosing not to offer a comparable perpetual contract itself.
The agency also pointed to CME trading data showing Bitcoin and Ether futures volumes were higher in June and August than in May, when Kalshi received approval. It argues that this weakens CME’s claim that Kalshi has already caused measurable competitive damage.
Even reclassifying the products as swaps might not solve CME’s alleged problem, the CFTC argues, because rival platforms could potentially continue offering perpetual contracts under that regulatory category.
The agency accused CME of effectively trying to use federal derivatives law to restrict new competition in a market where Congress also instructed regulators to encourage responsible innovation.
Perpetual futures are becoming a bigger US battleground
The lawsuit carries broader significance because perpetuals dominate crypto derivatives trading globally but have historically been much less accessible through regulated US venues.
The CFTC’s May decision extended beyond Kalshi. The regulator also said certain crypto perpetuals offered overseas could qualify as foreign futures and issued related guidance involving Coinbase Financial Markets and Deribit.
Kalshi is now looking beyond Bitcoin. Reuters reported this week that it plans to seek approval for a perpetual West Texas Intermediate crude oil contract, while it has also filed products tied to equity indexes, metals, foreign exchange, and interest rates.
The court, therefore, is not simply deciding whether CME dislikes a new competitor.
At stake is a more fundamental regulatory question: Does a contract without an expiry date still fit comfortably inside the legal definition of futures, or did the CFTC stretch that category to accommodate a product that behaves more like a swap?
CME’s opposition to the dismissal motion is due Oct. 2. Until the judge rules, Kalshi’s approval remains intact.
Share
Most read articles
