CFTC Seeks Dismissal of CME Lawsuit Over Kalshi Bitcoin Perpetual Futures

Highlights:

• The CFTC wants the court to dismiss the CME lawsuit as the exchange has not shown clear competitive harm.
• CME argues that crypto perpetual contracts should follow swap rules because they do not have fixed expiration dates.
• Kalshi can keep offering its Bitcoin perpetual contract while the court considers the dispute.

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) asked a federal court on Sept. 2 to dismiss CME Group’s challenge over crypto perpetual futures. The regulator filed its motion in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The CFTC argues that CME has not shown clear business harm from the agency’s approval of Kalshi’s Bitcoin perpetual contract.

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

CME filed its lawsuit on June 18 after the regulator approved Kalshi’s BTCPERP contract on May 29. BTCPERP gives traders ongoing Bitcoin price exposure through KalshiEX, a CFTC-registered designated contract market. The CFTC also allowed other designated contract markets to seek approval for similar perpetual contracts under the futures framework.

However, CME argues that crypto perpetuals should fall under swap rules instead of futures rules. CME stated that perpetual contracts provide ongoing exposure without fixed expiration dates, which supports its classification argument. The exchange claims the CFTC’s policy allowed Kalshi and other markets to compete for customers in CME’s retail futures business. CME wants the court to overturn Kalshi’s approval and the broader policy supporting perpetual contracts under futures rules.

The CFTC has rejected CME’s competitive claim because CME can seek approval to offer similar perpetual futures through its own regulated market. Moreover, the regulator cited CME’s public comments that its customers had not requested these products. The agency says those comments weaken CME’s argument that Kalshi’s approval created a competitive disadvantage. The CFTC therefore argues that CME created its own disadvantage by choosing not to seek approval for comparable products.

CME Lawsuit Faces New Standing Questions From CFTC

The CFTC also argues that CME lacks standing because the exchange has not shown a concrete injury that courts can resolve. CME must link an actual business injury directly to the CFTC’s approval of Kalshi’s perpetual contract. The exchange must also show that winning the case would likely remove that injury.

However, the CFTC says rival venues could still offer similar products if courts classified perpetual contracts as swaps. Therefore, CME could continue facing the same competition even after winning the classification dispute. The regulator also says different tax and regulatory rules would not necessarily prevent Kalshi from offering comparable derivatives.

The CFTC also raised a separate argument involving the Commodity Exchange Act. The agency stated that CME’s competitive interests fall outside the protections covered by the provisions cited in its lawsuit. The regulator argued that Congress designed the law to support market integrity, self-regulation, responsible innovation, and fair competition. The agency argued that CME cannot use those provisions to block competition from another regulated trading venue.

Court Weighs How Crypto Perpetuals Should Be Treated

The CFTC maintains that federal law does not require every futures contract to carry a fixed expiration date. Kalshi used Regulation 40.3 to seek formal approval before listing BTCPERP on its CFTC-regulated market. The CFTC concluded that Kalshi’s contract complied with the Commodity Exchange Act and rules for designated contract markets. The regulator also said perpetual structures may require separate reviews because they may not suit every asset.

CME must file its opposition to the CFTC’s dismissal motion by Oct. 2. The CFTC has also asked the judge to hold an oral hearing on its dismissal request. The judge could dismiss the case on standing grounds without deciding whether crypto perpetuals qualify as futures or swaps.