Don't want to trade it yourself?
Our desk runs DEX portfolios on profit share.
CFTC Asks Court to Dismiss CME Lawsuit Over Crypto Perpetual Futures Approval
03 September, 2026.Crypto.17 sources
Developing · updated 48m ago · 17 outlets
CFTC says CME lacks standing to sue over Kalshi crypto perpetual futures. CFTC argues Kalshi’s perpetual futures are futures under the Commodity Exchange Act.
17 outletsone story, no spin found
Do not take our word for it. Here is what they published.
SEC Proposes Transfer Agent Rule Overhaul For Tokenized Securities And Blockchain Recordkeeping
1789 Capital Leads Polymarket’s $1 Billion Funding Round Valuing It at $21 Billion
Full story
CFTC targets CME standing
The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission asked a federal court to dismiss Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME) Group’s lawsuit over the approval of crypto perpetual futures, arguing CME lacks standing to challenge the regulator’s decision.
“requested a hearing to address the motion to dismiss the CME lawsuit, claiming the group lacked standing”
TradingView
In a Wednesday filing in the US District Court for the District of Columbia, lawyers representing CFTC Chair Michael Selig and the commission requested a hearing to address the motion to dismiss, saying the group lacked standing.
The dispute began in June after the CFTC approved prediction-market platform Kalshi’s perpetual futures contracts tied to the spot price of Bitcoin and issued a no-action position for similar products on the cryptocurrency exchange Coinbase.
CME’s June complaint argued that Selig acted unilaterally without a full panel of five commissioners and that treating “futures” as “swaps” violated the Commodity Exchange Act.
The CFTC countered that CME failed to show actual financial harm or a specific competitive injury, noting that “any CFTC-registered exchange can list perpetual futures on digital assets.”
“Mucho ruido” in filings
CFTC attorneys told Cointelegraph that the lawsuit was “mucho ruido y pocas nueces,” arguing CME lacked legitimacy to bring it and rebutting CME’s arguments about perpetual futures.
The CFTC’s motion also said CME could not make a “concrete showing that it is in fact likely to suffer financial injury,” because the regulator clarified that any DCM—including CME—can offer perpetual futures on digital assets.
In its filing, the CFTC wrote that “This lawsuit is much ado about nothing,” while also arguing that CME’s claimed competitive disadvantage is “self-inflicted” if the exchange chooses not to list perpetual futures alongside its fixed-expiration products.
The CFTC spokesperson told Cointelegraph that CME had engaged in “lawfare,” and the agency called the June complaint “frivolous.”
The motion sought oral argument, and the public docket had not scheduled a hearing date as of Thursday, according to the filings described by TradingView.
What happens next
The CFTC asked the court to dismiss CME’s challenge without reaching whether crypto perpetual futures should be classified as swaps or futures, and it argued that even a ruling for CME would not remove competition because other venues could offer similar contracts under a new classification.
“She ordered both parties to submit a combined briefing schedule by Sept. 4, 2026.”
CoinMarketCap
CoinMarketCap reported that US District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly denied an earlier CFTC request to be excused from filing the administrative record and ordered both parties to submit a combined briefing schedule by Sept. 4, 2026.
CoinMarketCap also said CME’s opposition to the dismissal motion is due Oct. 2, 2026, while the CFTC requested an oral hearing on the motion.
The dispute centers on the CFTC’s May 29 approval of Kalshi’s Bitcoin perpetual contract under Regulation 40.3, with trading commencing in June, and CME’s June 18 lawsuit challenging that approval and a policy statement allowing other DCMs to list similar products.
If the case is dismissed on standing or other procedural grounds, the current policy and the Kalshi approval would remain in place, leaving the futures-versus-swaps classification question unresolved, according to the account in the
Source: newscord.org