CFTC Requests Dismissal of CME Complaint Over Kalshi Crypto Perpetuals

A complaint, a response, and a trial that is slipping. Three months after attacking its own regulator to cancel Kalshi's crypto perpetual futures, the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME) is facing a first counterattack. Indeed, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) filed a motion to dismiss in federal court on September 2, calling the lawsuit “much ado about nothing.” For the regulator, CME has not suffered any concrete damage and could, if it wanted, list this type of contract itself.

Four dates summarize the sequence: May 29, the CFTC authorized Kalshi's crypto perpetual contracts by an order and a policy statement; at the beginning of June, the platform launched its first Bitcoin perpetual; on June 18, the CME sued; on September 2, the CFTC requested the dismissal of this complaint.

CFTC considers CME complaint “frivolous”

According to the motion, relayed in particular by Jake Chervinsky, general director of the Hyperliquid Policy Center, the CFTC affirms that the CME has not identified any rule which would prevent it from itself offering the same perpetual contracts as Kalshi: no direct competitive harm, therefore no standing to take legal action. It is on this procedural ground that the agency evacuates most of the file, more than on the merits of the grievances of the CME, which also criticizes the CFTC for having validated perpetuals without public consultation (notice-and-comment) and for having broken with its own doctrine on swaps.

On the classification itself, the agency is categorical: “perpetual futures are futures”. As early as June, a CFTC spokesperson described the CME attack as frivolous; the motion of September 2 takes up this line in more measured words, speaking of “much ado about nothing”. She adds a numerical argument: volumes on CME bitcoin and ether futures increased in June and August compared to May, which according to her contradicts the story of competitive harm.

Let's rewind a bit. On May 29, the CFTC validated Kalshi's perpetual contracts with an order and a policy statement; the same day, the agency also adopted a no-action position allowing American users, via Coinbase, to access perpetuals listed abroad like those of Deribit. The CME's complaint, filed on June 18 in the federal court of the District of Columbia and entrusted to Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, targeted both the CFTC and its president, Mike Selig, named by name. The Chicago giant invoked the Administrative Procedure Act, accusing the regulator of having validated Kalshi's perpetuals without public consultation or reasoned decision. Three months later, it is this same reasoning that the agency brushes aside, turning the accusation of arbitrariness against its adversary.

Kalshi and the CME, a battle far from over

A weighty nuance, noted by Bloomingbit on September 2: part of the competitive disadvantage denounced by the CME comes from its own choice of not having launched this type of contract earlier. And even if a judge were to one day reclassify perpetuals as swaps, there is no guarantee that the problem will disappear, other exchanges could continue to offer similar products under another regulatory guise. Kalshi, for her part, does not seem to be overly worried about the procedure. The platform launched its first Bitcoin perpetual at the beginning of June, crossed the billion dollars in volume in less than a week, and has since listed thirteen contracts ranging from bitcoin to tokens like SOL or XRP.