The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) has requested the federal court to dismiss the lawsuit filed by CME Group. The case centers on whether crypto asset perpetual contracts should be classified as futures or swaps under the U.S. regulatory framework; the court has not yet issued a substantive ruling.
CME previously sued the CFTC to revoke the regulator’s approval of Kalshi’s Bitcoin perpetual contracts and to challenge policy statements classifying perpetual contracts as futures. In its latest motion, the CFTC stated that CME lacks standing to sue, as it could have pursued the same path to list similar products itself.
The CFTC stated that no actual harm has been demonstrated.
The CFTC told the court that CME's claimed competitive disadvantage is insufficient to form the basis for a lawsuit. The regulator noted that CME is also an approved contract market and could theoretically apply to launch perpetual contracts.
According to the CFTC, if CME faces competitive pressure due to not launching a similar product, this disadvantage stems more from its own choices than from regulatory approval itself. The regulator argues that CME has not demonstrated any specific harm directly caused by the CFTC’s actions.
The CFTC also cited CME’s own trading data, noting that CME’s Bitcoin and Ethereum futures trading volumes in June and August exceeded those in May—the month Kalshi was approved. Regulators used this to counter CME’s claim of impaired competition.
Changing the category does not necessarily eliminate competition.
The CFTC also raised a second procedural argument: even if the court ultimately determines that perpetual contracts should be classified as swaps, this would not necessarily eliminate the competitive pressure cited by CME.
Regulators stated that a change in product classification does not mean competitors cannot continue offering products with similar economic effects. Therefore, even if CME wins on the legal classification, it may not resolve the business harm it claims to have suffered.
The CFTC also noted that the CME case is not about whether regulators have the authority to approve such products, but rather focuses on whether Kalshi’s Bitcoin perpetual contract qualifies as a futures contract or a swap. The registration, trading, and regulatory requirements differ significantly between these two classifications, which is the core issue in this case.
October 2 is the next epoch.
The dispute began on May 29, when the CFTC approved the listing of Kalshi's BTCPERP contract. The product is traded on KalshiEX, a designated contract market registered with the CFTC.
Perpetual contracts typically have no fixed expiration date and often use periodic funding payments to keep the contract price close to the price of the underlying asset. CME believes that precisely because they lack a fixed expiration date, such products should fall under the swap definition under the Dodd-Frank Act.
The CFTC holds the opposite view. Regulators state that the absence of a fixed expiration date does not automatically exclude an instrument from being classified as a futures contract, and neither the current Commodity Exchange Act nor existing regulatory interpretations require futures to have a fixed expiration date.
CME must submit a response to the motion to dismiss by October 2. If the court dismisses the case on standing or other procedural grounds, the CFTC’s current policy and approval of Kalshi’s products will remain in effect.
Additional information: If the court determines that CME has standing to sue, the case will proceed to the merits phase, which could subsequently impact listing applications for cryptocurrency, stock, and commodity perpetual contracts on regulated U.S. markets.