Mentioned in This Article
1. A new trade group takes the CFTC to court
On Tuesday, November 3, a newly formed trade group called the Capital Markets Alliance (CMA) sued the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) in federal court in New York, seeking to undo the agency's approval of single-stock perpetual futures. The group, which counts Cboe and Citadel Securities among its supporters, argues the contracts are securities products that belong under the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and that the CFTC stock perps policy was adopted unlawfully.
The complaint was filed the same day the agency announced its decision, which means the policy faced a legal challenge almost as soon as it was made public. The speed suggests the plaintiffs had prepared their case in advance and were waiting for the announcement. The CFTC did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the lawsuit.
The dispute is the latest sign that the line between securities and derivatives regulation, long a source of friction in American finance, is being tested again by products that originated in the crypto industry and are now moving toward traditional assets.
2. What are stock perpetual futures?
A perpetual future, or perp, is a derivative contract that tracks the price of an underlying asset but has no expiration date. A trader can hold a position for as long as they like, rather than rolling it into a new contract when an old one expires, as is required with conventional futures. Crypto exchanges popularized the format, and perps now account for a large share of trading activity in digital assets.
A single-stock perpetual applies the same design to the shares of an individual company. Instead of buying the stock itself, a trader takes a leveraged position on its price through a contract that can stay open indefinitely. The CFTC's new policy is meant to let these products trade in a way that resembles the way crypto perps already trade under the agency's existing roadmap.
That framing is central to the dispute. The agency treats the product as an extension of something it has already allowed, while the plaintiffs treat it as a different kind of instrument altogether, because its value is derived from a security rather than from a commodity.
3. Who is the Capital Markets Alliance?
The CMA is a new organization with little track record. It describes itself as representing traditional financial firms and says leading exchanges, broker-dealers and investment firms support it. A spokesman said its members include Cboe, Citadel Securities and the Healthy Markets Association.
Cboe operates major options and futures exchanges, and Citadel Securities is one of the largest market makers in U.S. equities. Both earn revenue from trading in listed securities and their derivatives, so the arrival of a new, lightly regulated route for stock-linked leverage bears directly on their businesses.
The lawsuit appears to be the only significant action the CMA has taken so far. Its first public move is therefore also its defining one: a direct legal challenge to a federal regulator's policy on a product that did not yet exist in the American market.
Because the group is so new, the identity of its members is the main evidence of its weight. Naming two prominent market participants gives the complaint a commercial backing that a purely academic or advocacy challenge would lack, and it signals that established firms regard the new product category as a competitive and regulatory concern worth litigating.
4. Why is the CFTC stock perps policy being challenged?
The suit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, asks the court to eliminate the policy. It rests on two arguments. The first is a question of jurisdiction: the CMA contends that the contracts are security-based swaps, a category of instrument that falls under the SEC's authority rather than the CFTC's.
The second argument is procedural. The group says the CFTC violated the Administrative Procedure Act, the federal law that governs how agencies write and justify rules and policies. According to the complaint, the agency failed to explain its policy and failed to explain why it contradicts a position the agency had taken earlier.
Courts reviewing agency action under that statute often look at whether the agency gave a reasoned account of its decision and acknowledged any departure from past practice. A policy that is silent on those points is more vulnerable to being set aside, which explains why the plaintiffs placed the argument alongside their claim about jurisdiction.
5. What did CFTC Chairman Mike Selig say?
CFTC Chairman Mike Selig announced the policy and addressed it in a statement on Tuesday. He said the approach extends perpetual futures beyond digital commodities and into traditional securities, presenting the move as a widening of a framework already in place rather than as a new departure.
The decision came about five months after the CFTC first cleared a path for bitcoin perps. That earlier step was intended to draw an overseas market back to the United States, where the bulk of perpetual trading has historically taken place on platforms outside American regulatory reach. The stock version applies the same logic to equities: bring activity that exists offshore under domestic oversight.
The agency's interpretation depends on classifying the stock contracts in a way that keeps them within its remit. The CMA and other critics say that classification is precisely what is wrong, because it describes products referencing securities as though they fell on the derivatives side of the divide.
6. The earlier challenge from CME Group
The CMA is not the first party to go to court over the agency's perpetuals strategy. CME Group, the derivatives exchange operator, sued over the CFTC's action on crypto perps. Its argument is that perps are not futures at all, because futures by definition have an expiration date and perpetual contracts do not. In CME's view they are swaps, which carry different regulatory treatment.
The two lawsuits attack the policy from different directions. CME's case is about whether the instrument qualifies as a future. The CMA's case is about which regulator has authority over a contract that tracks a stock. Together they show that incumbents on both the securities and derivatives sides of the market are prepared to contest the agency's reading of its own mandate.
For the agency, the practical consequence is that its perpetuals framework now faces litigation on more than one front, covering both the crypto products it approved earlier and the equity-linked ones announced this week.
7. Criticism from the American Securities Association
Opposition has not been limited to the courtroom. The American Securities Association (ASA) criticized the policy on Tuesday. Its president and chief executive, Chris Iacovella, said the CFTC's decision to label stock perps as security futures sidesteps the SEC's jurisdiction and a congressional ban on selling security-based swaps to retail investors.
That last point raises the stakes beyond a turf dispute between two agencies. If the contracts are security-based swaps, as the critics maintain, then restrictions Congress placed on offering such products to ordinary investors could apply to them. The ASA's statement implies that the policy might open a path to retail customers that lawmakers deliberately closed.
The label the agency chose, security futures, matters for the same reason. Security futures are a recognized category with their own rules, and describing the new products in those terms allows the CFTC to claim a role in overseeing them. Critics argue that the label is being used to reach a result the law does not permit.
8. Why the jurisdiction question matters to markets
The United States divides oversight of financial markets between the SEC, which supervises securities, and the CFTC, which supervises futures and swaps on commodities and similar underlying assets. Products that sit between the two categories have repeatedly produced disputes, and the details of which regulator applies can shape who may offer a product, who may buy it, and what protections customers receive.
For traditional market participants, those details carry commercial weight. Exchanges and market makers built their businesses around the rules governing listed securities and their derivatives. A competing venue for leveraged stock exposure, operating under a different regulator and potentially different customer restrictions, could draw volume away from them.
For the crypto industry, the case is a test of how far the logic of perpetual futures can be carried. Perps began as a feature of digital asset exchanges. Whether regulators allow the structure to be applied to equities will indicate how much of the crypto market's product design can migrate into established financial markets.
9. What happens next in the case
The case now moves through the Southern District of New York. The CFTC has yet to respond publicly, and no hearing dates were reported alongside the filing. The agency's eventual reply will show whether it intends to defend the classification of the contracts on the merits, argue that its procedure was adequate, or both.
The outcome could shape more than the single policy. A ruling that the products are security-based swaps would place them under the SEC and the retail restrictions the critics cite. A ruling that the agency acted within its authority would leave the way open for exchanges to list stock perps under CFTC oversight, and would strengthen the agency's position in the separate dispute with CME Group.
Until a court acts, the policy remains the agency's stated position, and the groups opposing it have signaled that they intend to contest it, in court and in public statements.
Observers on both sides will also watch whether other market participants join the fight. The CMA has said that leading exchanges, broker-dealers and investment firms support it, and the CME Group case already shows that the agency's perpetuals approach has drawn more than one challenger. Whether additional parties file their own suits or submit supporting briefs will indicate how broad the opposition is.