• CME Group's CEO announced the preparation of a lawsuit against the CFTC.
• Earlier the Commission approved perpetual bitcoin futures on Kalshi.
• The regulator also did not oppose the trading of such contracts in the U.S. on Coinbase Financial Markets.
• CME Group believes that perpetual futures belong to swaps.
• This imposes additional requirements on their providers.

CME Group plans to file a lawsuit against the CFTC over the approval of perpetual futures, its CEO Terrence Duffy said in an interview with CNBC. According to him, such contracts fall under the definition of swaps and should be regulated accordingly.

A bit of context

At the end of May 2026 CFTC chairman Michael Selig stated that the regulator "opened the doors" to perpetual futures contracts on crypto assets for traders from the U.S.

The Commission approved the listing of the BTCPERP product on the Kalshi platform. The latter is registered with the CFTC as a derivatives exchange. At the same time, the product was classified as an ordinary futures contract.

In addition, the regulator sent the Coinbase exchange a so-called No-Action Letter. The company gained the ability to provide American clients with access to options and perpetual futures contracts on crypto assets through the FCM Coinbase Financial Markets.

A week after the launch, the volume of trading in perpetual bitcoin futures on Kalshi exceeded $1 billion, according to CNBC.

In both cases the contracts in question are classified as futures, not swaps. The requirements for providers of the latter are significantly stricter.

The essence of CME Group's claims

"We have exclusive licensing agreements with all providers of the relevant benchmarks. Therefore any such products would still have to go through CME — even if we are talking about perpetual contracts. And if it is ultimately recognized that these are swaps, they would have to add them as swaps," Duffy said.

CME Group's position is that perpetual futures contracts correspond to swaps under the Dodd-Frank Act, passed in 2010.

In particular, perpetual futures have no expiration date, unlike ordinary ones. The price of such contracts is kept close to the value of the underlying asset through a mechanism of periodic settlements between buyers and sellers (funding payments). The same approach is used in swaps.

In addition, the presence of high leverage, up to 50x, produces much greater risks for retail traders compared with ordinary futures.

At the same time, the latter are traded through a DCM, while for swaps a separate regime is provided — SEF (swap execution facilities). The requirements for swap dealers in terms of margin, clearing, base capital, and reporting are substantially higher.

"I have never shied away from anything, and I will not shy away from this. I am ready, and I will be ready to go through with this. And that is exactly why I wanted to announce on your program that we will file this lawsuit tomorrow, because we do not take this lightly," Duffy emphasized.

Pressure on perpetual futures providers is growing

Earlier we reported that CME Group and ICE, the operator of the New York Stock Exchange, appealed to the CFTC demanding that it bring under control the decentralized exchange Hyperliquid, the largest provider of perpetual futures.

As ICE explained, the company is concerned about unequal competition. Perpetual futures on traditional assets, for example oil, are available on Hyperliquid around the clock. This affects pricing and calls into question the relevance of the provider's benchmarks.

In addition, amid the approval of perpetual futures on Kalshi, the shares of these companies fell. In the case of CME Group the drawdown is 6.2%, and ICE's is about 2%. These are figures as of the close of trading on May 29 and June 1, 2026. Over a monthly period the drawdown on these positions is even larger.

Source: Incrypted