CME Group has filed a lawsuit challenging the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission’s (CFTC) handling of cryptocurrency perpetual futures, arguing the agency has been applying the Commodity Exchange Act in a way that Congress did not intend. The complaint was submitted in a Thursday filing in the US District Court for the District of Columbia against the CFTC and its chair, Michael Selig.

The dispute centers on the CFTC’s recurring approvals of perpetual futures tied to crypto spot prices, including a May 29 notice that approved a Bitcoin (BTC)-linked perpetual futures structure for prediction markets platform Kalshi and issued a no-action position for similar products on Coinbase. CME argues these actions conflict with congressional directives and asks the court to vacate the approvals.

Key takeaways

CME’s lawsuit targets the CFTC and chair Michael Selig over the agency’s regular handling of crypto perpetual futures.
The complaint ties the disagreement to how perpetual products are classified under the Commodity Exchange Act, including whether they should be treated like “swaps” with expiry dates.
CME alleges Selig acted unilaterally rather than through a full five-commissioner panel.
CFTC’s response, via a spokesperson, rejects the claims and calls the complaint “frivolous.”
The case comes amid wider uncertainty around CFTC leadership composition, with Selig operating as sole commissioner.

What CME is alleging in its complaint

According to CME’s filing, the CFTC’s approvals of perpetual futures attached to crypto spot benchmarks run contrary to what CME says Congress intended when it set out the regulatory framework for derivatives. CME’s argument focuses on the agency’s approach to classification—specifically, CME claims the CFTC has treated “futures” as if they were “swaps” that carry expiration dates.

CME further contends that these steps violate the Commodity Exchange Act. In addition to the statutory interpretation issue, the company raises a procedural concern: it argues Selig acted without the full complement of five CFTC commissioners, which CME characterizes as improper.

“With one stroke of his pen, [Selig] overrode Congress’s definition of the term ‘swap’ and circumvented the regulatory regime Congress required for that form of derivative,” the complaint says.

“The CFTC’s failure to evenhandedly, consistently, and correctly apply the CEA risks harming competition and destabilizing derivatives markets.”

Why Kalshi and Coinbase are central to the dispute

The lawsuit draws on a May 29 CFTC notice that CME says illustrates the agency’s approach. In that notice, the CFTC approved a Bitcoin spot-linked perpetual futures contract structure for Kalshi, a platform that operates in prediction markets, and it also issued a no-action position for comparable products associated with Coinbase.

CME is effectively challenging the logic behind those approvals: if the products are treated in a way that CME believes blurs the futures-versus-swaps distinction, CME argues it undermines the regulatory boundaries that Congress set.

For market participants and venues, the case matters because perpetual products are widely used in crypto markets, and regulatory classification can affect compliance expectations, oversight, and competitive dynamics among exchanges and liquidity providers. CME’s complaint signals that at least some major market infrastructure operators believe there are unresolved legal questions about how these instruments should be regulated in the US.

CFTC’s chair response and the question of authority

CME’s legal action follows closely behind public statements from both sides. One day before the lawsuit filing, CME CEO Terrence Duffy said the exchange operator would sue the CFTC over perpetual futures. In an earlier CNBC interview, Selig described perpetual futures contracts as trading similarly to other derivatives and argued that the Commodity Exchange Act does not define the term “futures contract.”

In response to the filing, a CFTC spokesperson told Cointelegraph that CME was engaging in “lawfare” and framed the suit as part of broader disputes over crypto policy. The spokesperson called CME’s complaint “frivolous.”

The clash highlights an enduring regulatory tension: whether perpetual crypto products should be treated as futures within the CFTC’s established framework, or whether they align more closely with a swaps regime that carries different requirements. CME’s filing also adds a governance dimension—its claim that Selig acted outside a full commissioner process—raising questions about how decisions should be authorized under the CFTC’s internal structure.

Leadership backdrop at the CFTC

The lawsuit lands in a period of leadership uncertainty at the agency. Selig was confirmed by the US Senate in December 2025 and, as of Thursday, remained the chair and the only commissioner on the CFTC. The CFTC’s intended leadership panel is supposed to include five people, but as of Thursday, President Donald Trump had not announced nominations to fill those seats.

Cointelegraph previously reported that many members of Congress had urged the administration to nominate commissioners for the remaining roles. This governance context is relevant to CME’s procedural argument that unilateral action should not be treated as sufficient for decisions that shape derivatives regulation.

At the same time, CME’s dispute does not only concern whether perpetual futures are substantively comparable to other derivatives; it also challenges whether the regulator’s power has been exercised in a manner consistent with the agency’s legal and administrative expectations.

What to watch next is how the court handles CME’s request to vacate the CFTC’s actions and what standard it applies to the classification and authority questions. The case could influence how perpetual crypto derivatives are structured and approved in the US, but until rulings arrive, the regulatory status of future perpetual contracts may remain contested for venues, traders, and counterparties.