Mentioned in This Article
1. CFTC perpetual futures: what the agency told the court
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission has urged a federal court to turn away a challenge from CME Group to its approach to perpetual futures. In a brief filed last Friday, the agency argues that the exchange operator has not shown it is being harmed by the policy that cleared the first U.S. bitcoin perpetual contract, and that CME therefore has no standing to sue.
The filing is the latest step in a dispute that could decide how quickly perpetual contracts, a product that grew large on offshore venues, are allowed to develop inside the United States. The CFTC says CME's claims of rising competition lack any plausible basis for an imminent financial injury, and it points to the exchange's own crypto futures volumes as evidence.
2. How the dispute began
In May, the CFTC opened the way for perpetual futures in the U.S. by approving the first bitcoin perpetual contract, which came from the prediction and derivatives platform Kalshi. The approval signaled that the agency was prepared to let such contracts expand on domestic markets rather than leave the business to overseas exchanges.
CME objected and took its case to court. In response, the CFTC has now said that CME has no right to block the agency from proceeding. The agency first asked a federal judge to dismiss CME's lawsuit last month, and the latest filing sets out in more detail why it believes the exchange operator is not entitled to bring the case at all.
A separate notice published in the Federal Register on June 3 set out the agency's position on how these products will be handled. Under that approach, the CFTC said it will regulate perpetual contracts case by case, treating them as futures.
3. What is a perpetual futures contract?
A perpetual futures contract, often called a perp, lets a trader take a position on the future price of an asset, typically with leverage, and has no built-in expiration date. A conventional futures contract ends on a fixed day and must be settled or rolled into a new contract. A perp can be held for as long as the trader keeps the position funded.
Perps became one of the most heavily traded forms of crypto derivatives outside the United States, where exchanges built large markets around them. The CFTC's decision was intended to clarify how U.S. markets could begin offering them. It also fit the broader direction set by President Donald Trump's crypto agenda, which has included an aim to bring perpetual trading onshore.
4. Why CME says perps are not futures
CME, which operates some of the world's leading derivatives venues, argues that perpetual contracts are not futures precisely because they lack an end date. In its view they are swaps, a category that falls under a very different regulatory regime from exchange-traded futures.
The distinction matters because the legal label determines which rules apply, which kinds of venues may list a product, and how it must be overseen. If a perp is a future, it can be handled through the framework the CFTC has already applied. If it is a swap, the path to market would look different, and the agency's approach to approving contracts would be open to question.
CME spokespeople did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the CFTC's latest filing.
5. The standing argument
The CFTC's brief rests mainly on a threshold question rather than on the merits of whether perps are futures or swaps. To sue, a party generally must show that it has suffered, or is about to suffer, a concrete injury caused by the conduct it is challenging. The agency says CME must plausibly show an actual or imminent increase in competition from the new policy, and that it has not done so. In the brief's words, CME has not even done that.
The agency also leans on what CME has told its own investors. According to the CFTC, the exchange operator has said it has not seen demand for perpetual contracts and that perps are not substitutes for the futures it already offers. The CFTC argues that a company cannot take one position in court and an inconsistent one on earnings calls with investors.
The brief adds that volume in CME's crypto futures has risen since the policy shift. If the exchange's business has grown rather than shrunk, the agency contends, the claim of competitive harm is difficult to sustain.
6. How perpetual contracts stay tied to the spot price
Because a perp never expires, it needs a mechanism to keep its price close to that of the underlying asset. Most designs use a periodic funding payment exchanged between traders who are betting on a rise and those betting on a fall. When the perpetual trades above the spot price, long positions typically pay shorts, and when it trades below, the flow reverses. The payment discourages the contract from drifting far from the market it tracks.
That structure is a large part of why traders favor the product. A position can be held without the need to roll from one expiry to the next, and leverage lets participants control a large exposure with a small amount of margin. The same features also magnify losses, which is one reason regulators have paid close attention to how such contracts are listed, margined and cleared.
The futures-versus-swaps argument matters because American law treats the two categories differently. Futures are traded on regulated exchanges known as designated contract markets and are cleared through central clearinghouses. Swaps are a broader class of agreements that came under a dedicated framework after the 2008 financial crisis, with their own rules on execution, clearing and reporting.
A contract that lacks an expiration date does not fit neatly into either box, which is why both sides can build an argument from the same feature. CME points to the missing end date as a reason to regard perps as swaps. The CFTC has chosen to treat them as futures and to review them one at a time, which gives it room to attach conditions to each approval.
7. How a standing challenge works
Standing is a gatekeeping requirement in federal court. A plaintiff must generally show an injury that is concrete and either actual or imminent, that the injury is traceable to the defendant's conduct, and that a court ruling could remedy it. Speculation about harm that might arise at some point is usually not enough, and a defendant can ask the court to dismiss a case at the outset on that basis, before any detailed examination of the legal merits.
For a business challenging a regulator's decision that benefits a rival, the usual claim is that the decision exposes it to increased competition. Courts can accept such claims, but the company is expected to point to real, plausible effects on its own business. That is the standard the CFTC says CME has failed to meet, and why the agency has focused on the exchange's own statements about demand and on the trend in its crypto futures volume.
8. Why the case matters beyond one exchange
Standing arguments are often decisive in litigation of this kind. If the court agrees that CME has not shown a plausible injury, the case could end before a judge ever decides whether perpetual contracts qualify as futures. That outcome would leave the CFTC's policy in place and let the market continue to develop under it.
If the court allows the case to proceed, the central legal question of whether perps are futures or swaps would be addressed directly. A ruling for CME on that point could force changes to a market that is only beginning to take shape in the United States.
9. What the TD Cowen analyst says
Jaret Seiberg, a policy analyst at TD Cowen, wrote in a client note on Monday that CME may still hold an advantage both on the question of standing and on its argument that perpetual contracts are swaps. He stressed that time is running out for the new market.
Seiberg said his main concern is that perps keep growing while the litigation continues. If CME ultimately wins, he indicated, unwinding a larger market could be complicated. That prospect, in his reading, raises the stakes of the timing: the longer the case lasts, the more positions and participants would be affected by an adverse result.
10. What comes next
The immediate step is for the federal judge to rule on the CFTC's request to dismiss CME's suit for lack of standing. The agency filed its first dismissal request last month, and its latest brief is aimed at answering CME's position on injury. No date for a decision was given.
Whatever the outcome at this stage, the dispute shows how contested the boundary between futures and swaps has become as crypto products move onto regulated U.S. platforms. Exchanges, traders and regulators will be watching to see whether a product built for offshore markets can be brought into the domestic system without a lasting legal challenge, and whether the agency's case-by-case method holds up if a court examines it on the merits.
CME has not yet publicly responded to the filing. Its answer, and the court's treatment of the standing question, will indicate whether the first U.S. bitcoin perpetual remains the start of a broader domestic market or the subject of a drawn-out legal fight.