The CFTC is asking to withdraw CME's lawsuit against Kalshi's perpetual futures — the regulator sees weakness in the exchange's arguments.

The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) has officially filed a motion in court to dismiss the proceedings in the lawsuit brought by CME Group, which challenges the approval of bitcoin perpetual futures by competing platform Kalshi. In the reasoning section, the regulator directly points to the lack of convincing evidence from CME of actual harm from market competition.

The CFTC's key argument is built on the premise that CME, as a leading derivatives exchange, possesses all the necessary resources and licenses to independently launch a similar instrument. If the company sees potential in perpetual futures, nothing prevents it from bringing such a product to market without resorting to legal injunctions against newcomers.

However, CME itself holds a fundamentally different position. The exchange classifies Kalshi's contracts as swaps rather than futures and insists that they should be subject to a separate, stricter regulatory regime. According to CME, approving such instruments without proper legal qualification creates a dangerous precedent that blurs the boundaries between derivatives categories.

In its lawsuit, CME argues that the regulator exceeded its authority by allowing Kalshi to offer products that are essentially over-the-counter swaps disguised as futures. This, in the exchange's view, threatens market integrity and creates unequal conditions for participants.

Nevertheless, judging by the CFTC's position, the regulator sees no grounds for intervening in competitive rivalry. The motion to dismiss emphasizes: if CME is genuinely interested in the perpetual contracts segment, it should focus on innovation rather than blocking competitors' products through the courts.

The proceedings continue, and the court's decision could set an important direction for the entire crypto derivatives industry in the U.S.

My expert analysis: This dispute is a classic example of old financial institutions battling new formats. CME is defending not so much the letter of the law as its market share. If the court sides with the CFTC, it will open the floodgates for perpetual futures to appear on other regulated platforms, inevitably intensifying competition and reducing fees for investors. However, if CME manages to prove that Kalshi violates the swaps regime, we will see stricter requirements imposed on all innovative products.