The CFTC of the United States rebuts the lawsuit qualification of CME: stating that it has not reasonably explained how the perpetual contract policy caused financial harm

The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) stated in its latest court filing that CME only claims increased competition without reasonably explaining the existence of imminent financial harm, which is insufficient to qualify for a lawsuit challenging its perpetual contract policy. The CFTC pointed out that after the policy adjustment, CME's cryptocurrency futures trading volume has actually increased.

In May of this year, the CFTC approved Kalshi's first Bitcoin perpetual contract and stated that it would regulate such products on a case-by-case basis under futures regulations. CME, on the other hand, believes that perpetual contracts do not have an expiration date and should be classified as swaps rather than futures, subject to a different regulatory framework. Last month, the CFTC requested a federal judge to dismiss the case, and this filing further elaborated on its rebuttal to CME's standing in the lawsuit.

The CFTC also noted that CME had previously informed investors that it had not heard customer demand for perpetual contracts, and that such products could not replace its existing futures, and that it should not take different positions in court and during earnings calls. TD Cowen policy analyst Jaret Seiberg believes that CME may still have the upper hand regarding its standing in the lawsuit and the argument that the products should be classified as swaps. However, he is concerned that if the perpetual contract market continues to grow during the litigation, it may become more complicated to dismantle this market if CME wins.