TL;DR
Get hardware and tech essentials delivered free with Prime
- Fast, free delivery on millions of items
- Prime Video, Amazon Music and more included
- Member-only deals all year
The CFTC has told a federal court that CME Group has not shown concrete or imminent harm from the agency’s policy permitting U.S. perpetual futures, and argues the exchange lacks standing to sue. CME disputes the policy’s treatment of perpetual contracts as futures, arguing they should be regulated as swaps. The court has not resolved the dispute.
The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission has argued in a new court filing that CME Group has not shown it faces imminent financial harm from the agency’s approach to perpetual futures, and therefore lacks standing to challenge it. The filing advances the CFTC’s effort to have CME’s lawsuit dismissed and leaves unresolved a consequential dispute over how perpetual contracts should be classified and regulated in the United States.
In a brief filed Friday, the CFTC said CME had not plausibly alleged that the agency’s policy would increase competition in a way that causes the exchange actual or imminent injury. The agency argued that increased competition by itself, without a credible account of near-term financial harm, does not give CME legal standing to bring the case.
The CFTC also pointed to CME’s public statements to investors. According to the filing, the exchange has said it has not heard demand for perpetual futures and has characterized them as unlike the futures products it offers. The agency said CME should not be able to make one case to investors and a different one in court. Those statements are part of the CFTC’s argument; they are not a court finding about the market or the merits of CME’s suit.
The agency further noted that trading volume in CME’s crypto futures had risen since its policy shift, using that trend to contest the claim that the policy had harmed the exchange. CME did not immediately respond to CoinDesk’s request for comment on the filing. A rise in trading volume does not by itself establish whether the new contracts could compete with CME products over time.
The Stakes for U.S. Perpetuals
The case could affect whether perpetual futures can gain a foothold in U.S. markets under the CFTC’s current approach. Perpetual contracts have become a significant form of crypto derivatives trading overseas, and the agency’s May policy move signaled that it was prepared to consider such products for domestic trading on a case-by-case basis.
For firms seeking to offer these contracts, the dispute is not just about competition with CME. It also concerns which legal framework applies. If treated as futures, products may fall under a different regulatory approach than if they are classified as swaps, as CME argues. The court’s handling of the case could shape how regulators and market participants assess similar contracts, although the filing alone does not settle that question.
The standing issue could determine whether CME’s substantive challenge is heard at all. If the court agrees that CME has not shown a sufficiently concrete injury, it could dismiss the case without deciding whether the CFTC’s classification is legally correct. If the case proceeds, the court may have to address the boundary between futures and swaps as applied to contracts without a fixed expiration date.
cryptocurrency futures trading platform
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
How the Dispute Took Shape
In May, the CFTC opened the door to U.S. perpetual futures by approving what the source report describes as the first bitcoin perpetual contract from Kalshi. The agency indicated it would evaluate these products case by case as futures, rather than announce a blanket approval for every contract or provider. The move formed part of a broader push to develop domestic trading in perpetual products.
Perpetual futures let traders speculate on an asset’s future price, often using leverage, and do not have a built-in expiration date. That feature is central to CME’s objection. The exchange has argued that contracts without an end date are not futures and should instead be treated as swaps, which would bring a different regulatory approach.
CME, a major derivatives exchange, challenged the agency in court. The CFTC asked a federal judge to dismiss the case last month; the October filing sets out its argument that CME has not established standing. TD Cowen policy analyst Jaret Seiberg wrote in a Monday client note that CME may still have an advantage both in arguing it is a competitor with standing and in its position on swap classification. That is an analyst’s assessment, not a ruling or a conclusion adopted by the court.
““Allegations of increased competition, without any plausible inference of an imminent financial injury,” do not give CME legal standing to challenge the agency’s actions.”
— Commodity Futures Trading Commission, in its court brief
perpetual crypto futures contracts
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
Questions the Court Has Yet to Resolve
The court has not ruled on the CFTC’s request to dismiss, and the available report does not provide a hearing date or a timetable for a decision. It is also not yet clear whether the judge will decide standing first or allow the case to move forward to the dispute over how perpetual contracts should be classified.
The filing presents the CFTC’s position, not an independent determination that CME faces no competitive injury. CME’s response to the latest brief was not available in the report, and the exchange’s view of the agency’s policy remains contested. The future scale of U.S. perpetual-futures trading, and whether it would affect established futures markets, also remains uncertain.
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
The Next Step in Court
The immediate next milestone is the federal court’s consideration of the CFTC’s request to dismiss CME’s lawsuit. Any response from CME, court scheduling orders, or a ruling could clarify whether the exchange has shown enough potential harm to proceed. The source report does not specify when the court is expected to act.
If the case survives the standing challenge, the dispute could turn to whether perpetual contracts fit the legal definition of futures or should be handled as swaps. Separately, the CFTC has said it will consider these products case by case, so future approvals and agency decisions may shape the market while litigation continues. No outcome on those questions has been established.
crypto trading volume analysis software
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
Key Questions
What did the CFTC argue in its latest filing?
The CFTC argued that CME has not shown actual or imminent financial harm from the agency’s perpetual-futures policy and therefore lacks standing to challenge it in court.
Why does CME oppose the CFTC’s approach?
CME argues that perpetual contracts have no expiration date and should not be treated as futures. It says they should instead be classified as swaps, which would involve a different regulatory approach.
Has the court decided whether the CFTC is right?
No. The filing states the CFTC’s position. The court has not resolved the standing question or ruled on whether perpetual contracts should be treated as futures or swaps.
What are perpetual futures?
They are contracts that let traders speculate on an asset’s future price and typically have no built-in expiration date. Such trading can involve leverage and carries a risk of loss; contract features and regulatory treatment vary.
Source: rss
Halloween Picks
halloween
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
