CFTC seeks dismissal of CME lawsuit over Kalshi’s Bitcoin perpetual futures

The CFTC wants a federal court to toss out CME Group’s lawsuit challenging the agency’s decision to greenlight Kalshi’s Bitcoin perpetual futures contract. The regulator isn’t being subtle about its feelings either, calling the suit “frivolous” and accusing CME of choosing courtrooms over competition.

At the center of this dispute is a deceptively simple question: is a Bitcoin perpetual futures contract actually a futures product, or is it a swap? The answer determines which regulatory rulebook applies, and for CME, the wrong answer threatens its comfortable position atop the US derivatives market.

How we got here

The CFTC approved KalshiEX LLC’s Bitcoin perpetual futures contract, known as BTCPERP, on May 29. What made the approval notable wasn’t just the product itself but the speed: Kalshi submitted its application and received approval within a single day through the agency’s self-certification process.

CME Group, which operates the world’s largest regulated derivatives exchange, filed suit on June 18 in the US District Court for the District of Columbia (case No. 1:26-cv-02157). The lawsuit names both CFTC Chairman Michael Selig and the agency as defendants.

CME’s argument boils down to classification. The exchange contends that perpetual contracts, which never expire and allow traders to hold positions indefinitely, should be categorized as swaps under the Dodd-Frank Act rather than futures. That distinction matters enormously. Swaps face a different and generally more burdensome regulatory regime, including clearing mandates and margin requirements that don’t apply to futures in the same way.