Hyperliquid Policy Center Urges Dismissal of CME's Lawsuit Against CFTC

HPC's brief echoes the CFTC's own arguments, citing two primary defects in CME's legal challenge. Firstly, HPC contends that CME lacks the necessary legal standing because it has not demonstrated a plausible competitive injury, a requirement for challenging government action. The group argues that the doctrine of competitor standing, which CME relies on, is inapplicable here as the CFTC's order does not intensify competition in a fixed market.

Secondly, HPC asserts that CME is an unsuitable challenger because its interests fall outside the scope of the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA) provisions it is invoking. The advocacy group further accused CME of attempting to block innovation within the U.S. futures markets. HPC stated that CME, by seeking court intervention, is preventing other exchanges from making their own commercial decisions regarding similar contracts, which CME itself has not yet chosen to list.

CME's core argument in its lawsuit is that these perpetual contracts are, in fact, swaps and not futures, and therefore the CFTC improperly approved them without adhering to a formal rulemaking process. The HPC's amicus brief arrives as Hyperliquid, an offshore decentralized perpetual exchange, is reportedly in advanced discussions with Kraken's parent company, Payward, to introduce selected crypto perpetual futures to U.S. traders.