On Monday, October 19, 2026, CoinDesk reported that the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission has told a federal court that CME Group lacks legal standing to challenge the agency’s approach to perpetual futures, deepening a dispute over how the contracts will be regulated.
In a brief filed Friday, October 16, the CFTC argued that CME’s claims of increased competition do not plausibly show an imminent financial injury. The agency noted that volume in CME’s crypto futures has risen since the commission shifted its policy, and said CME has not alleged an actual or imminent increase in competition.
The agency also cited CME’s statements to investors, saying the exchange operator has indicated it has not seen demand for perpetual contracts and does not view them as substitutes for its own futures. The CFTC argued CME cannot take one position in court and another on earnings calls.
The CFTC first asked a federal judge to dismiss the case last month. The new filing lays out in detail its argument that CME lacks legal standing to bring the challenge.
The dispute stems from May, when the CFTC approved Kalshi’s bitcoin perpetual futures contract, the first of its kind in the U.S., and signaled it was ready to welcome a domestic surge in such contracts. Perpetual contracts had become a major form of crypto derivatives trading overseas. The agency, acting amid President Donald Trump’s crypto agenda, said it would regulate the products as futures on a case-by-case basis.
Perpetual futures let traders speculate on an asset’s future price, typically with leverage, and have no built-in expiration.
CME, which operates leading global derivatives venues, objected in court. It argues the contracts are not futures because they have no end date, and are instead swaps, which would carry a different regulatory approach. CME spokespeople did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the filing.
Jaret Seiberg, a policy analyst at TD Cowen, wrote in a Monday client note that CME may still hold the edge on both its standing as a competitor and its argument that perpetual futures may be treated as swaps. He said growth in perpetuals while the litigation proceeds is a concern, because unwinding the market could be complicated if CME prevails.
The case, pending before a federal judge, turns on two questions: whether CME has standing to sue as a competitor, and whether perpetual contracts qualify as futures or swaps. The answer to the second would determine which regulatory framework applies to the products.
Source: CoinDesk
Be the first to comment