The Hyperliquid Policy Center has filed an amicus brief in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia backing the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and urging the court to dismiss CME Group’s lawsuit over approved crypto perpetual futures. The group argues that CME has not demonstrated a competitive injury and that its commercial interests fall outside the protections of the Commodity Exchange Act.
Represented by former U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, HPC advanced two main objections. First, it rejected CME’s claim of “competitor standing,” noting that the CFTC’s May 29 approval of Kalshi’s Bitcoin perpetual futures contract did not place CME under different rules from rivals. Instead, the order opened a path for all registered U.S. futures exchanges—including CME—to seek approval for comparable perpetual products. HPC said the exchange’s decision not to use that route cannot be treated as an injury caused by the regulator.
The CFTC made a similar argument in its Sep. 2 dismissal request, calling any disadvantage “self-inflicted.” The regulator also cited CME trading data showing Bitcoin and Ether futures volumes in June and August exceeded May levels, when Kalshi’s BTCPERP contract was approved.
Second, HPC argued that CME fails the “zone of interests” test because it is using sections of the Commodity Exchange Act to protect its commercial position rather than interests Congress intended the law to cover. “CME is an unsuitable challenger because its interests fall outside the zone of interests of the CEA provisions it invokes,” the group said.
The underlying lawsuit, filed June 18, challenges the CFTC’s approval of Kalshi’s Bitcoin perpetual futures and a related policy statement. CME argues that perpetual contracts—which have no fixed expiration date and use funding payments to anchor prices—are swaps under the Dodd-Frank Act, not conventional futures. The CFTC maintains that the Commodity Exchange Act does not require a fixed expiration date and that Kalshi’s product complied with the act and the agency’s rules.
HPC warned that if CME prevails, incumbents could litigate against every CFTC-approved product that they choose not to offer. “Once a titan of innovation, CME now advances a novel theory of standing under which an incumbent exchange is injured whenever its regulator permits a new product that it chooses not to offer,” Prelogar said in the brief. “If CME prevails, every product that the CFTC approves will invite litigation from incumbents who prefer the status quo, and the pace of progress in the U.S. futures markets will slow to a crawl.”
Kalshi was not named as a defendant in CME’s case, and Coinbase—which received related regulatory relief for certain perpetual products—was also not named. Kalshi has continued expanding its crypto derivatives lineup, including filing for HYPE perpetuals in June. Hyperliquid itself operates an offshore decentralized perpetual exchange and restricts direct U.S. access, though Hyperliquid Labs and Kraken parent Payward have discussed offering selected Hyperliquid-linked contracts through CFTC-regulated Bitnomial. CME is due to respond to the CFTC’s dismissal motion by Oct. 2.
