CFTC Updates 2026

Key dates

2026-08-26

The CFTC proposed the amendment in 91 FR 55030, RIN 3038-AF79, and opened the public-comment period.

2026-09-25 Deadline

Public comments on the proposed rule must be received by the CFTC.

Suggested considerations

• SEF compliance teams should distinguish Required Transactions from Permitted Transactions under 17 CFR 37.9 and confirm that any planned platform changes preserve Order Book and RFQ functionality for Required Transactions.
• SEFs may wish to inventory Permitted Transaction products, execution protocols, customer usage, liquidity, pre-trade transparency, surveillance dependencies, and annual Order Book operating costs before deciding whether to retain, modify, or discontinue optional Order Book functionality.
• SEFs relying on CFTC No-Action Letter No. 25-24 should assess whether their current implementation remains consistent with the proposal and should monitor the eventual final rule rather than treating the NPRM as binding law.
• SEF applicants may wish to reassess platform design and launch costs because the proposal could remove the need to build an Order Book solely for Permitted Transactions.
• Swap dealers, major swap participants, and other active SEF users should assess whether removal of an optional Order Book could affect execution practices, liquidity access, pre-trade transparency, best-execution analysis, or internal trading procedures for Permitted Transactions.
• Interested firms should consider submitting comments to CFTC docket CFTC-2026-1882, including quantified technology, staffing, infrastructure, surveillance-integration, and market-impact data, by September 25, 2026.
• Compliance teams should continue applying CEA section 2(h)(8), 17 CFR 37.9, and applicable Part 43 reporting obligations unless and until a final rule changes them.

What changed

The proposed amendment would revise 17 CFR 37.3(a)(2) so that a SEF must, at a minimum, offer an Order Book as defined in 17 CFR 37.3(a)(3) for Required Transactions as defined in 17 CFR 37.9(a)(1). It would remove the obligation to offer an Order Book for Permitted Transactions, defined in 17 CFR 37.9(c)(1) as transactions that do not involve a swap subject to the CEA section 2(h)(8) trade-execution requirement. SEFs could continue offering Order Books for Permitted Transactions voluntarily and could use any execution method permitted under 17 CFR 37.9(c)(2).

Key dates

2026-08-21

Request for Comment published in the Federal Register.

2026-10-20 Deadline

Comments are due, calculated as 60 days after Federal Register publication.

2026-10-05

Reported target date for CME Group and Silicon Data to list two compute or GPU-rental futures contracts, subject to regulatory review; this date is not established by the CFTC Request for Comment.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to determine whether the firm has relevant empirical data on compute prices, volumes, counterparties, supplier concentration, utilization, capacity commitments, or bilateral contract terms that could support a CFTC submission.
• Potential DCM and SEF applicants should consider mapping proposed contract specifications and settlement methodologies against CEA section 5(d), Core Principles 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, and 11, 17 CFR 38.150-38.160, 38.200-38.201, 38.250-38.258, 38.500, and 38.603, and the guidance in 17 CFR part 38 appendices B and C.
• Firms developing or contributing data to a compute index should consider documenting data provenance, publication practices, governance, auditability, contributor concentration, observation-window controls, fallback mechanisms, and safeguards against manipulation by capacity providers.
• FCMs, introducing brokers, and other intermediaries may wish to assess whether existing BSA/AML, KYC, onboarding, suitability, disclosure, and market-conduct controls address the risks identified for compute derivatives, including opaque bilateral markets and geopolitically sensitive supply.
• Market participants may wish to submit comments by the applicable deadline, clearly referencing RIN 3038-AF77 and the Request for Comment on the Listing of Compute Derivatives Contracts, while avoiding unnecessary personal or confidential business information because submissions will be publicly posted.
• Firms tracking product development should consider monitoring any subsequent DCM self-certification or Commission-approval filing, as the consultation itself does not authorize trading or postpone a proposed listing.

What changed

No final rule, approval, prohibition, or new compliance obligation was introduced. The CFTC is requesting comment on compute cash-market size, liquidity, transparency, supplier concentration, fungibility, benchmark methodology, deliverable supply, manipulation risks, surveillance feasibility, customer protection, heightened BSA/AML and KYC issues, retail protections, and the design and risks of perpetual compute futures.

Key dates

2026-08-21

Proposal published in the Federal Register for public comment.

2026-10-05 Deadline

Written comments are due 45 days after Federal Register publication.

Suggested considerations

• Firms should assess each pool’s investor eligibility against the natural-person and non-natural-person requirements in proposed Regulation 4.13(a)(4), including the distinctions between qualified eligible persons and accredited investors.
• RIAs should review offering documents, subscription procedures, investor representations, and transfer controls to support the required reasonable belief at investment or conversion that all participants satisfy the applicable eligibility criteria.
• Compliance teams may wish to confirm that each relevant pool’s interests qualify for a Securities Act exemption and that U.S. marketing practices comply with the proposed restriction, including the Rule 506(c) exception.
• Eligible advisers should map Form PF obligations and determine whether existing SEC filings would satisfy the proposed condition that Form PF be filed where required.
• Firms should prepare to file or update electronic exemption notices with the NFA and maintain the proposed Regulation 4.13 annual affirmation, recordkeeping, disclosure, and statutory-disqualification representations.
• Managers operating both registered and exempt pools should assess the proposed Regulation 4.13(e)(2) communications and redemption-right requirements and identify whether any existing participants would require notice before a pool is operated as exempt.
• Small-pool operators should model eligibility using the proposed $800,000 aggregate threshold while continuing to monitor the 15-participant-per-pool limit and unchanged contribution exclusions.
• Managers relying on Staff Letter 25-50 should preserve evidence of current compliance and evaluate transition implications because the CFTC preliminarily proposes to supersede that relief if the rule is finalized.

What changed

Proposed Regulation 4.13(a)(4) would exempt an SEC-registered investment adviser from CPO registration for qualifying pools if the pool interests are exempt from Securities Act registration and are not publicly marketed in the United States, except that the marketing restriction would not apply to pools offered under SEC Rule 506(c) of Regulation D.

Key dates

2026-08-20

CFTC announced and published the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking seeking amendments to Regulation 37.3(a)(2).

Suggested considerations

• SEFs should assess which listed products and transaction categories are permitted transactions under Regulation 37.9(c)(1), distinguishing them from swaps subject to the CEA section 2(h)(8) trade-execution requirement.
• SEFs should consider whether to submit comments within 30 days after the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is published in the Federal Register, including evidence on order-book usage, execution quality, liquidity, market transparency, and operational costs.
• SEFs should review their rulebooks, execution protocols, product listings, disclosures, surveillance coverage, and client documentation to determine what changes would be needed if the proposal is finalized.
• SEFs relying on the CFTC’s existing no-action relief should confirm the relief’s scope and conditions and maintain controls ensuring that required transactions continue to satisfy applicable execution requirements.
• Swap dealers, major swap participants, and other market participants should identify whether counterparties or venues may discontinue order-book functionality for permitted transactions and evaluate impacts on liquidity access, best execution or execution-quality processes, recordkeeping, and internal trading procedures.
• Compliance teams should monitor the Federal Register for the actual publication date, comment deadline, final-rule date, and any changes to the proposed effective date; the August 20, 2026 press release does not itself establish the comment deadline.

What changed

The proposed rule would remove the Regulation 37.3(a)(2) requirement for an SEF to offer an order book for permitted transactions. A permitted transaction is defined in Regulation 37.9(c)(1) as a transaction that does not involve a swap subject to the CEA section 2(h)(8) trade-execution requirement; such transactions are not required to be executed on an SEF or designated contract market and may use any execution method offered by the SEF.

Key dates

2026-08-20

Chairman Michael S. Selig delivered the Innovation Advisory Committee speech and announced the prospective roadmap for crypto assets, compute markets, and prediction markets.

Suggested considerations

• Firms should treat the speech as a forward-looking supervisory and rulemaking signal, not as an effective legal change, and continue applying currently effective CEA, CFTC regulations, registration, listing, reporting, customer-protection, and market-surveillance requirements.
• Crypto platforms should assess whether their products could constitute futures, swaps, or retail commodity transactions offered on a margined, leveraged, or financed basis, and should document the current jurisdictional and registration analysis for each product and customer segment.
• Crypto exchanges and protocol developers may wish to monitor CFTC releases, Federal Register notices, and any proposed rules concerning crypto asset markets, onchain finance protocols, and possible DCM designation; they should be prepared to submit comments within the applicable future comment periods rather than relying on the speech as a safe harbor.
• Designated contract markets and prediction-market operators should review event-contract listing governance, product surveillance, manipulation controls, customer disclosures, incentive programs, and state-law litigation exposure in light of the CFTC's stated intention to defend exclusive federal jurisdiction.
• Prediction-market firms should monitor developments concerning prohibited gaming-related contracts, public-interest standards, fully collateralized event-contract reporting, and enhanced consumer-protection requirements identified in independent industry coverage of the committee meeting.
• Firms developing compute-related contracts or financing products should map the underlying compute service, delivery and settlement terms, participants, and potential commodity or derivatives characterization so that they can respond meaningfully to the CFTC and Department of Commerce request for comment.
• Compliance teams may wish to update regulatory-change inventories and senior-management briefings to distinguish the Chairman's policy direction from binding Commission action, particularly because any future rules would require formal rulemaking, publication, and applicable transition periods.

What changed

The Chairman directed CFTC staff to explore rules establishing a CFTC framework for crypto asset markets using existing authorities. The proposed approach could allow current registrants and non-registrant crypto exchanges to be designated as a type of designated contract market called a crypto asset market, with authority to offer crypto asset trading on a leveraged or margined basis under purpose-specific rules; no rule text, eligibility criteria, effective date, or compliance threshold was issued in the speech.

Key dates

2026-08-19

CFTC issued Release 9286-26 and announced the request for comment on listing compute derivatives contracts.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to identify whether the firm has direct or indirect exposure to compute cash markets, proposed compute futures, perpetual futures, benchmark administration, clearing, brokerage, or related trading activity.
• Firms considering submitting comments should assess the CFTC questions concerning cash-market size and liquidity, contract specifications, price formation, benchmark representativeness, settlement and rollover mechanics, manipulation scenarios, customer protection, and the risks of perpetual contracts.
• Potential contract venues and intermediaries should consider documenting how existing CFTC requirements under the Commodity Exchange Act and 17 CFR Parts 1 and 38 could apply to product submission, exchange oversight, market surveillance, position management, reporting, risk management, and customer funds.
• Trading and surveillance functions may wish to evaluate potential abusive strategies involving GPU capacity reservations, cloud allocation, data-centre outages, energy constraints, benchmark inputs, wash trading, spoofing, corners, squeezes, and manipulation of physical or reference markets.
• Firms should monitor the Federal Register and Regulations.gov for the publication date, final comment deadline, any technical corrections, and subsequent CFTC guidance or contract-approval filings.
• Market participants may wish to avoid treating the press release or request for comment as evidence that compute derivatives are already approved or that a reported exchange launch date is assured.
• Governance teams may wish to assign ownership across legal, commodities compliance, market surveillance, model risk, technology risk, procurement, and business teams because compute derivatives would connect financial-market controls with operational characteristics of cloud and data-centre markets.

What changed

The CFTC opened a public consultation under RIN 3038-AF77 concerning compute cash markets and potential compute derivatives contracts. The request seeks information on market size, liquidity, contract design, market oversight, manipulation risks, customer protection, and perpetual compute futures, and is associated with potential amendments or application of the CFTC framework in 17 CFR Parts 1 and 38. It does not itself approve a compute futures contract, authorize an exchange to list one, impose new compliance obligations, or establish a final regulatory position.

Key dates

2022-12-23

The SDNY entered the initial consent orders finding Ellison liable on two CFTC fraud counts and Wang liable on one fraud count; the trading and registration bans run from this date.

2026-08-19

The CFTC announced entry of the supplemental consent orders, continued cooperation requirements, and final sanctions resolving its enforcement actions against Ellison and Wang.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to update individual sanctions, registration-eligibility, and trading-eligibility records for Ellison and Wang, using December 23, 2022 as the start date for the applicable bans.
• CFTC registrants should consider screening applicants, employees, directors, officers, consultants, and controlled-account traders against the specific five-year trading prohibitions and registration prohibitions before permitting covered activity.
• Firms should consider obtaining and reviewing the operative supplemental and initial consent orders to determine the precise scope of prohibited trading, registration, and cooperation-related provisions rather than relying only on the press release.
• Digital asset and derivatives firms may wish to retain evidence of due diligence and escalation decisions concerning former FTX or Alameda personnel, counterparties, and beneficial owners.
• Compliance teams may wish to assess whether the resolution's treatment of substantial cooperation and the absence of additional monetary relief creates a relevant precedent for internal investigations, voluntary cooperation, document preservation, and regulator-engagement protocols.
• Firms should continue treating the permanent antifraud injunctions under Commodity Exchange Act Section 6(c)(1) and CFTC Regulation 180.1 as conduct restrictions applicable to Ellison and Wang; the resolution does not create a general exemption from those provisions for other market participants.
• Affected firms may wish to coordinate CFTC, SEC, bankruptcy, and criminal-case screening because the CFTC sanctions are distinct from the SEC officer-and-director restrictions and the criminal forfeiture order.

What changed

The supplemental consent orders finalize the CFTC's actions against Ellison and Wang in conjunction with their initial December 23, 2022 consent orders. Ellison is subject to a five-year trading ban and a 10-year registration ban; Wang is subject to a five-year trading ban and an eight-year registration ban. Both must continue cooperating with the Commission and remain permanently enjoined from violating the antifraud provisions charged under the Commodity Exchange Act and CFTC regulations. The bans run from the date of the initial consent orders rather than from August 19, 2026.

Key dates

2026-08-18

CFTC announced publication of a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking concerning amendments to Part 4 CPO and CTA registration requirements.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to obtain and review the full Federal Register proposal, including the precise sophisticated-investor criteria, pool-level conditions, adviser eligibility requirements, proposed small-pool capital threshold, effective date, and transition provisions.
• Firms should consider mapping each existing and prospective pool against the proposed CPO exemption conditions and each advisory mandate against the proposed CTA exemption conditions, without treating the proposal as currently available relief.
• SEC-registered advisers may wish to compare the proposed exemption with their current CFTC registration status, CFTC Regulation 4.13 or 4.14 filings, Rule 4.7 reliance, and any applicable CFTC staff no-action relief.
• Small-pool operators should consider recalculating eligibility using the proposed inflation-adjusted capital-contribution threshold once the precise amount is published and assessing whether existing offering, subscription, and compliance controls would continue to demonstrate compliance.
• Affected firms may wish to assess whether to submit comments within 45 days after Federal Register publication, particularly on investor definitions, treatment of derivatives and swaps, aggregation rules, recordkeeping, reporting, and coordination with SEC adviser requirements.
• Firms relying on existing exemptions or no-action letters should continue meeting their current conditions and filing obligations unless and until a final rule or separate relief changes them.
• Legal and regulatory inventories may be updated to cross-reference CFTC Regulations 4.5, 4.7, 4.13, and 4.14, the Commodity Exchange Act, and the Investment Advisers Act of 1940.

What changed

The CFTC issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking proposing amendments to Part 4. The proposal would add a CPO registration exemption for certain investment advisers registered with the SEC in connection with commodity pools whose participants are limited to specified sophisticated investors and that satisfy additional conditions set out in the proposal. It would add a related CTA registration exemption. It would also increase the capital-contribution threshold applicable to the existing small commodity pool exemption under CFTC Regulation 4.13 to account for inflation.

Key dates

2026-08-06

CFTC published the proposed rule in the Federal Register at 91 FR 50926.

2026-10-05 Deadline

Public comments on the proposal must be received by this date.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to review current affiliate structures involving FCMs, SEFs, DCMs, DCOs, and trading affiliates to identify where the proposal would create new disclosure, surveillance, or conflict-management obligations.
• Firms may wish to map any shared personnel, technology, office space, or information flows between affiliated entities and assess whether additional controls would be needed to protect regulatory impartiality.
• Market-regulation and legal teams may wish to assess whether existing board, committee, and disciplinary-panel processes would satisfy the proposed independence and conflict-management expectations.
• FCMs may wish to inventory current disclosures to customers and counterparties and determine whether additional affiliate-relationship disclosures would be needed if the rule is finalized.
• Affected entities may wish to prepare comment letters before the 2026-10-05 deadline if they want to influence the final scope of the proposal.

What changed

The proposal would amend CFTC regulations in Parts 1, 37, 38, and 39, including regulations 1.52 and 1.55, to strengthen oversight of affiliated entities. For FCMs, it would add requirements around disclosure of affiliate relationships with SEFs, DCMs, or DCOs, and it would adjust SRO and DSRO financial-surveillance requirements for affiliate FCMs.

Key dates

TBD (est. late 2026 / 2027)

- Potential adoption of final rules on affiliations requirements, depending on the volume and content of comments and Commission deliberations

TBD (mid‑2026) Deadline

- Federal Register publication date of the NPRM on affiliations (the comment deadline will run for 60 days from this publication; firms should monitor the Federal Register and CFTC website to confirm the exact date)

30 July 2026

- CFTC issues press release announcing the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on affiliations among CFTC‑regulated entities and indicates that comments will be accepted for 60 days following publication in the Federal Register

TBD (60 days after Federal Register publication)

- End of public comment period on the proposed amendments to Parts 37, 38, 39 and regulations 1.52 and 1.55 concerning affiliations and vertically integrated market structures

Suggested considerations

• Identify and map all affiliate relationships involving CFTC‑regulated entities within your group (DCO, DCM, SEF, FCM, SD/MSP, trading entities, market makers) and document how roles and control relationships could create actual or perceived conflicts of interest.
• Conduct a gap analysis of existing governance, conflicts‑of‑interest, information‑barrier, and supervision frameworks against the anticipated principles‑based expectations for vertically integrated structures under Parts 37, 38, 39 and regulations 1.52 and 1.55.
• Review and, where necessary, enhance board‑level and committee‑level oversight arrangements for affiliated entities to ensure independent decision‑making on listing, clearing, rule enforcement, membership, and client treatment where affiliates are involved.
• Assess current customer risk disclosures, including those required under regulation 1.55 for FCMs, to determine whether affiliate relationships and related conflicts are adequately described, and prepare draft revisions that could be implemented if the new requirements are finalized.
• Engage legal, compliance, and business stakeholders for each affected entity (DCO, DCM, SEF, FCM, trading entity) to prepare a coordinated comment letter to the CFTC explaining operational impacts, potential unintended consequences, and recommendations on specific rule language.

What changed

• - Introduces principles‑based requirements for vertically integrated market structures involving affiliations between derivatives clearing organizations, designated contract markets, swap execution...
• Amends Part 37 to set additional governance, conflict‑management, and structural requirements for swap execution facilities where the SEF is affiliated with an intermediary or trading entity.
• Amends Part 38 to impose enhanced conflict‑of‑interest and self‑regulatory safeguards for designated contract markets that are affiliated with futures commission merchants or proprietary trading...
• Amends Part 39 to clarify and strengthen requirements on derivatives clearing organizations in group structures where the DCO is affiliated with intermediaries or other market participants, including...
• Amends regulation 1.52 (accounts and records; FCM supervisory requirements) to reflect the heightened expectations placed on futures commission merchants that are part of vertically integrated...

Key dates

2026-06-25

CFTC published the original request for comment in the Federal Register at 91 FR 38334

2026-07-08

CME NYMEX self-certified a 24/7 oil contract

2026-07-09

CFTC stayed the self-certified 24/7 oil contract

2026-07-28

CFTC published the extension of the comment period at 91 FR 47158

2026-08-26 Deadline

Extended comment deadline for the request for comment

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to assess whether existing trading, clearing, settlement, surveillance, and customer-protection controls would function on a 24/7 basis.
• Firms may wish to review the CFTC’s additional questions on the stayed CME NYMEX crude oil contract and consider whether their comments should address execution, settlement, market integrity, and operational resilience issues.
• Market participants may wish to prepare data-driven comments, because the CFTC’s consultation is focused on factual and empirical input rather than conclusory policy statements.
• Firms considering perpetual or around-the-clock products may wish to map any dependencies on payment systems, margin processes, and holiday/weekend operational support before submitting comments.

What changed

This publication does not impose a new binding rule; it extends the comment deadline for an existing request for comment by 30 days. The underlying consultation covers two issues: whether standard futures contracts, including energy futures, can trade on a 24/7 basis without changing expiration, delivery, or settlement terms, and whether perpetual contracts referencing physically delivered or storable energy commodities should be permitted.

Key dates

22 June 2026

- CFTC issues the targeted request for comment on extending standard energy futures to 24/7 trading and on the listing of perpetual contracts referencing physically delivered or storable energy commodities

26 July 2026 Deadline

- Original 30‑day comment deadline for the RFC on 24/7 trading and energy perpetual contracts (now superseded by the extension)

26 August 2026 Deadline

- Extended deadline for submission of public comments on the RFC regarding 24/7 trading of standard energy futures and perpetual contracts referencing physically delivered or storable energy commodities

Suggested considerations

• Identify and convene an internal cross‑functional working group (trading, risk, operations, compliance, legal, and IT) to assess potential impacts of 24/7 trading and energy perpetual contracts on your firm’s business model and control environment.
• Perform a gap analysis of current trading, clearing, surveillance, margin, and risk management frameworks against the operational and risk expectations articulated in recent CFTC staff advisories and policy statements on 24/7 markets and perpetual contracts.
• Draft and submit a data‑driven comment to the CFTC by 26 August 2026 addressing the RFC questions most relevant to your activities, including empirical analysis of liquidity, price formation, manipulation risk, funding rate behavior, and customer protection in energy derivatives.
• Review and update internal policies and procedures for trade surveillance, market abuse monitoring, and manipulation detection to address continuous 24/7 trading windows and any contemplated use of energy perpetual contracts.
• Assess whether current staffing models, systems support, and incident‑response processes can support 24/7 trading or clearing operations, and document enhancements or mitigations that would be needed to maintain operational resilience.

What changed

• - The CFTC has extended the comment deadline on the RFC regarding 24/7 trading of standard futures contracts and perpetual contracts in energy markets by 30 days, moving the due date to 26 August...
• The RFC focuses on the extension of standard futures contracts, including energy futures, to a 24/7 trading schedule while keeping fixed expirations but allowing potentially material economic changes...
• The RFC separately focuses on the listing and regulation of perpetual contracts that reference physically delivered or storable energy commodities, such as crude oil, and that have no fixed...
• The Commission has added additional questions to the original RFC to probe market integrity, price formation, operational resilience, customer protections, and risk management implications of 24/7...
• The RFC builds on and is informed by the CFTC’s May 29, 2026 coordinated actions on perpetual contracts and 24/7 trading in digital commodities, including the Policy Statement on perpetual contracts,...

Key dates

2011-07-22

CFTC adopted Part 20 as a temporary large trader reporting framework for physical commodity swaps.

2026-07-21

Final order effective date; routine Part 20 reporting requirements become ineffective and unenforceable.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to confirm that Part 20 daily and event-based filing workflows are disabled or archived as of the effective date.
• Firms may wish to retain the underlying books, records, and futures-equivalent conversion methodologies required for special-call production under § 20.6 and related retained provisions.
• Operational teams may wish to map any legacy Part 20 controls to SDR, Parts 43 and 45, and Part 150 processes to avoid duplicate reporting.
• Firms may wish to review document retention and response procedures so that special-call requests can be answered promptly if the CFTC seeks underlying records.
• Compliance functions may wish to update internal regulatory inventories and policies to reflect that Part 20 routine reporting is no longer enforceable, while recordkeeping obligations remain.

What changed

The order renders the routine position-reporting requirements of Part 20 ineffective and unenforceable, so clearing organizations, clearing members, and swap dealers are no longer required to file the daily and event-based reports previously required under §§ 20.3, 20.4, 20.5, and related reporting provisions. The CFTC is retaining, under § 20.9(b), the recordkeeping and special-call provisions, including the obligation to keep records of paired swaps and swaptions and the methods used to convert positions into futures equivalents and to produce those records on request.

Key dates

2025-07-25

CME requested exemptive relief from CFTC regulation 41.25(c)

2026-07-10

SEC granted CME exemptive relief, subject to heightened listing standards

2026-07-15

CME submitted an updated request to the CFTC incorporating the SEC-conditioned listing standards

2026-07-16

CFTC order became applicable

2026-07-21

Federal Register publication date of the CFTC order

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to review whether any proposed or existing single-stock futures products rely on opening-price settlement and whether the CME order changes product design assumptions.
• Firms may wish to confirm that the relevant underlying securities satisfy CME’s heightened liquidity and market-capitalization listing standards before marketing, clearing, or supporting these contracts.
• Market surveillance teams may wish to assess whether surveillance procedures need updating for closing-price settlement mechanics and end-of-day manipulation risks.
• Operational teams may wish to align settlement, market data, and surveillance processes with the product’s closing-price final settlement methodology.
• Legal and regulatory teams may wish to track the separate SEC and CFTC conditions, since CME’s ability to proceed depends on both regimes.

What changed

The order exempts CME from CFTC regulation 41.25(c), which generally requires the final settlement price of a cash-settled security futures product to fairly reflect the opening price of the underlying security or securities. The relief is granted under regulation 41.25(e), which permits exemptions on specified terms and conditions when consistent with the public interest and the protection of customers.

Key dates

2026-07-17

Federal Register publication date for the final rule

2026-08-17 Deadline

Final rule effective date

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to identify whether any counterparties qualify as eligible seeded funds under the revised margin-affiliate definition and document the three-year trading-inception window.
• Firms may wish to refresh margin threshold calculations to reflect the exclusion of qualifying seeded funds from margin-affiliate aggregation.
• Operational teams may wish to update collateral eligibility schedules so that money market and similar fund securities are assessed under the expanded eligible-collateral framework.
• Risk and valuation teams may wish to confirm haircut logic under Commission Regulation 23.156(a)(3) for money market and similar funds.
• Legal and compliance functions may wish to map the final rule against existing IM procedures, counterparty onboarding language, and margin agreements to determine whether amendments are needed before the effective date.
• Firms may wish to coordinate with fund sponsors and asset managers to verify the fund's start-up capital structure, independence, support limitations, and commencement of trading for any seeded-fund analysis.

What changed

['The Commission revised the definition of "margin affiliate" so that certain collective investment vehicles that receive start-up capital from a sponsor entity, referred to as "seeded funds," are treated as having no margin affiliates or as not constituting margin affiliates of another entity for purposes of the initial margin threshold calculation.', "For eligible seeded funds, swap dealers and major swap participants subject to the CFTC uncleared swaps margin rules are relieved from the requirement to post and collect initial margin for up to three years from the fund's trading inception...

Key dates

2017

- Staff no-action letters began providing the interim reporting approach for certain fully collateralized event contracts

TBD (est. late 2026)

- The proposal will proceed through the public-comment process and could later be finalized, subject to Commission action

13 May 2026

- CFTC staff issued a no-action letter regarding swap data reporting and recordkeeping for event contracts, reinforcing the temporary relief framework

25 June 2026

- The CFTC published the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking seeking public comment on amendments to Parts 15, 16, and 17

Suggested considerations

• Firms that list, clear, intermediate, or report covered event contracts should inventory all event-contract products and map each product to the current reporting regime and the proposed Parts 15 through 18 framework.
• Compliance teams should identify all reporting fields, systems, and workflows currently relying on Parts 38, 39, 43, or 45 for event-contract reporting and assess whether those processes would need redesign.
• FCMs, clearing members, and foreign brokers should review their data governance and source-of-truth controls to ensure they can produce the reporting elements required under §16.00, §16.01, Part 17, and Part 18 if the proposal is adopted.
• Firms should track the public-comment process and prepare comments if the proposed framework creates operational gaps, duplicated reporting, or ambiguities in product scope.
• Market participants should review reliance on existing no-action letters and prepare contingency plans for a transition from interim relief to a codified rule.

What changed

• - The CFTC proposes an alternate reporting framework for certain fully collateralized event contracts, replacing reliance on certain reporting provisions in Parts 38, 39, 43, and 45 with reporting...
• The proposal would amend Part 15, Part 16, and Part 17 of the CFTC’s regulations.
• The proposal would add a new §16.03 titled “Covered Event Contracts” to Part 16.
• The proposal would require reporting pursuant to §16.00, §16.01, Part 17, and Part 18 for covered event contracts.
• The proposal would apply to reporting by certain reporting markets, futures commission merchants, clearing members, and foreign brokers.

Key dates

23 June 2026

- CFTC files its lawsuit against Kentucky to block enforcement actions and special transaction fees against CFTC‑registered DCMs

TBD (2026–2027)

- Key procedural milestones in *CFTC v. Kentucky* (motion practice, preliminary injunction hearings, and potential appellate review), which will shape how quickly and broadly federal preemption over prediction markets is clarified

TBD (aligned with ongoing cases in Minnesota, Illinois, Rhode Island)

- Progression of related CFTC suits and amicus‑briefed appeals in the Sixth Circuit, Ninth Circuit, and Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, which will collectively define the jurisdictional perimeter for event contracts

Suggested considerations

• Review and update state‑law risk assessments for all CFTC‑regulated DCM activities, with a specific focus on gambling, consumer‑protection, tax, and licensing regimes in Kentucky and other active states.
• Conduct a targeted legal analysis of whether existing or planned event‑based or prediction‑market contracts might be recharacterised as gambling under relevant state laws, and document the basis for treating them as CFTC‑regulated derivatives.
• Map all customer‑facing operations, servers, marketing, and on‑the‑ground presence in Kentucky and other contentious states, and evaluate whether operational changes (e.g. geofencing, revised onboarding flows) are warranted pending judicial outcomes.
• Engage external counsel to monitor *CFTC v. Kentucky* and related state and federal cases, and establish an internal escalation protocol so that material developments (e.g. injunctions, adverse rulings) trigger prompt compliance and product‑governance review.
• Update board and senior management reporting to include a standing item on state–federal jurisdictional conflicts affecting prediction markets, highlighting litigation exposure, revenue at risk, and contingency plans.

What changed

• - The CFTC has initiated federal litigation against Kentucky seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent the state from enforcing civil actions and special transaction fees against...
• Kentucky has filed civil enforcement actions in state court against CFTC‑regulated DCMs, characterising their event contracts as illegal gambling and seeking substantial monetary penalties.
• Kentucky has adopted a new “special transaction fee” (functionally an excise or levy) specifically targeting transactions on CFTC‑regulated DCMs, intended to incentivise these platforms to cease...
• The CFTC is explicitly framing Kentucky’s actions as an impermissible interference with Congress’s federal preemption framework and the CFTC’s exclusive jurisdiction over futures, options, and swaps,...
• The Commission is building a broader litigation strategy, noting parallel proceedings against Minnesota, Illinois, and Rhode Island and amicus participation before the Sixth and Ninth Circuits and...

Key dates

11 June 2026

- The CFTC published the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking seeking public comment on amendments to its whistleblower rules

TBD (30 days after Federal Register publication)

- The public comment period closes 30 days after the NPRM is published in the Federal Register

TBD (after comment review)

- The CFTC may finalize, modify, or withdraw the proposal after reviewing public comments

Suggested considerations

• Review whistleblower intake, escalation, and investigation procedures to ensure the firm can identify potential CEA violations before they become external whistleblower submissions.
• Update training for front office, operations, compliance, and management personnel on CFTC whistleblower protections and the increased incentive structure.
• Assess whether confidentiality, reporting, and non-retaliation controls are sufficiently documented to withstand scrutiny if a whistleblower complaint arises.
• Reconfirm that internal policies do not discourage employees from communicating with the CFTC or otherwise create retaliation risk.
• Monitor the Federal Register publication date and decide whether the firm, trade association, or counsel should submit a comment during the open comment period.

What changed

• - The CFTC proposes a 30% presumption for whistleblower awards of $5 million or less.
• The presumption remains subject to Commission discretion and application of relevant regulatory factors.
• The proposal is modeled on SEC Rule 21F-6(c) to further harmonize CFTC and SEC whistleblower frameworks.
• The CFTC says the change is intended to improve the efficiency, transparency, and predictability of award processing.
• The proposal would affect how the CFTC’s Whistleblower Office evaluates award claims under Part 165.

Key dates

10 June 2024

– Earlier CFTC NPRM on event contracts was published in the Federal Register as “Event Contracts; Proposed Rule, 89 FR 48968,” later withdrawn on 06 February 2026; the new NPRM effectively replaces that initiative with a more targeted framework

06 February 2026

– CFTC formally withdrew the 2024 Event Contracts proposed regulatory action (91 FR 5386), clearing the path for the current, more targeted NPRM on enumerated activities

12 March 2026

– CFTC issued an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) on prediction markets and a staff advisory to DCMs, launching a broader process to develop a tailored regulatory framework for prediction markets

30 April 2026 Deadline

– Comment deadline for the March 2026 prediction‑markets ANPRM, which this NPRM is described as addressing in part and which may lead to additional rulemaking

10 June 2026

– CFTC announces the new NPRM on amendments to Regulation 40.11 and addition of Appendix F to Part 40 regarding event contracts involving enumerated activities

Suggested considerations

• Map and inventory all existing and planned event contracts listed or cleared through CFTC‑registered entities to identify those that may “involve” terrorism, assassination, war, gaming, or conduct unlawful under federal or state law.
• Conduct a legal analysis of how the proposed definitions of “involve” and “gaming” would apply to your current product set, particularly sports, political, entertainment, and other contest‑based contracts, and document the rationale.
• Review and update internal product‑approval and new‑contract listing procedures to incorporate the proposed 90‑day CFTC review process, including timelines, documentation standards, and decision gates tied to Section 5c(c)(5)(C).
• Develop or update written policies and controls to ensure that contracts potentially involving enumerated activities are escalated for legal, compliance, and regulatory‑affairs review before submission to the CFTC.
• For DCMs and SEFs, enhance product‑submission templates to clearly address the proposed Appendix F public‑interest factors, including description of the underlying event, potential for unlawful activity, market integrity risks, and consumer‑protection considerations.

What changed

• - The NPRM would amend CFTC Regulation 40.11 to embed a formal analytical framework for assessing whether an event contract involves an activity enumerated in CEA Section 5c(c)(5)(C) and, if so,...
• The NPRM would add Appendix F to Part 40 to set out the factors, tests, and procedural steps the Commission will apply when reviewing specific event contracts referencing enumerated activities.
• The proposal would define key statutory terms, including at minimum “involve” and “gaming,” to clarify when an event contract is considered to touch an enumerated activity under CEA Section...
• The NPRM would establish a 90‑day review process for the Commission to evaluate event contracts that may implicate enumerated activities, including procedural protections such as notice, opportunity...
• The proposed framework would codify public‑interest factors the Commission will apply when deciding whether a particular contract involving an enumerated activity is contrary to the public interest...

Key dates

1998

– CFTC adopts Appendix A to Part 10, establishing the policy of not accepting settlements where the respondent or defendant continues to deny the allegations

21 May 2026

– Federal Register publication date referenced in the CFTC’s final rule rescinding Appendix A to Part 10 (Rescission of Policy Regarding Denials in Settlements of Enforcement Actions, 91 FR 29892)

03 June 2026

– CFTC issues Press Release 9247‑26 publicly announcing that it has rescinded the policy and will not enforce existing no‑deny provisions

[Effective date of Federal Register publication – 21 May 2026]

– The rescission of Appendix A to Part 10 becomes effective as a final rule upon publication in the Federal Register; from this date, the CFTC will not apply the no‑deny policy in new settlements and will not enforce existing no‑deny clauses

Suggested considerations

• Review all existing CFTC settlement orders, consent orders, and related agreements to identify any no‑deny or neither‑admit‑nor‑deny clauses and update internal records to reflect that the CFTC has stated it will not enforce those provisions.
• Update internal enforcement and litigation playbooks to incorporate the new settlement flexibility, including explicit guidance that public denials post‑settlement may be possible but should be subject to legal and reputational risk review.
• Revise board- and senior‑management reporting on CFTC enforcement risks and settlement strategy to reflect the rescission of the no‑deny policy and the availability of settlements without waiving the ability to contest allegations in public communications.
• Implement or update communications and investor‑relations protocols governing post‑settlement statements, ensuring any public denials or clarifications are coordinated with legal, compliance, and, where relevant, parallel regulators or criminal authorities.
• For ongoing CFTC investigations or settlement negotiations, instruct external and internal counsel to reassess settlement strategy, including whether to seek terms that preserve the firm’s ability to deny or contest aspects of the CFTC’s allegations after settlement.

What changed

• - The CFTC has rescinded the policy in Appendix A to Part 10 that prevented the Commission from accepting settlement offers where a respondent or defendant continued to deny the allegations in a...
• The CFTC will now accept settlements even where the settling party publicly denies or continues to deny the CFTC’s allegations, provided other settlement terms are satisfied.
• The CFTC has stated that it will not enforce existing no-deny (neither‑admit‑nor‑deny) provisions in settlements that have already been entered.
• If a settling party breaches an existing no-deny provision, the CFTC will not allege breach of contract, seek to reopen the matter, ask a district court to vacate the settlement, or reopen an...
• The rescission does not alter the CFTC’s discretion to: - settle with defendants who decline to admit facts or liability; or - negotiate and require admissions of facts or liability in...

Key dates

20 March 2025

– Executive Order 14243 is issued, setting an administrative objective to eliminate bureaucratic duplication and inefficiency, which this CFTC enhancement is designed to support

01 June 2026

– CFTC announces and launches the Portal enhancement permitting consolidated product self‑certification submissions for multiple closely related contracts

Suggested considerations

• Review and obtain the updated submission instructions on the CFTC Portal and ensure legal, compliance, and operations staff understand the consolidated filing functionality and any new formatting or data‑entry requirements.
• Update internal product approval and submission procedures (including Part 40 playbooks and checklists) to reflect the ability to file a single set of documents for multiple closely related contracts, and to define when consolidation is appropriate.
• Revise internal documentation templates (e.g., product term sheets, legal analyses, core principle compliance memos, risk assessments) so that they can explicitly support multiple closely related contracts in a single package where relevant.
• Adjust governance workflows (approvals, sign‑offs, and quality checks) so that:
• Each contract included in a consolidated submission is clearly identified and traceable, and

What changed

• - The CFTC Portal now supports consolidated product self‑certification submissions, enabling exchanges to file a single set of certification documents that apply to multiple closely related contracts...
• Exchanges are no longer required to upload multiple identical copies of supporting product certification documents when listing several closely related contracts; one shared documentation set can be...
• The enhancement is framed as an administrative/technical change to the filing process; it does not alter substantive legal standards for product self‑certification under the Commodity Exchange Act or...
• The CFTC has issued updated submission instructions on the Portal site specifying how to use the new consolidated filing functionality, including formatting and process guidance.
• Dedicated technical and non‑technical CFTC contacts have been identified (Howard Rosen for system use; Chris Goodman for product submission process questions), signaling that the Commission expects...

Key dates

29 May 2026

– CFTC issues the policy statement on listing of perpetual contracts and an order permitting a DCM to list a perpetual futures contract referencing the spot price of bitcoin

TBD (upon Federal Register publication)

– Policy statement is published in the Federal Register; from that point, DCMs and market participants can treat it as the Commission’s formal articulation of expectations for perpetual contract listings

Suggested considerations

• DCMs intending to list new perpetual contracts must route proposed products that are not clearly covered by the existing bitcoin perpetual order through a Commission Regulation 40.3 case‑by‑case review process, and should build internal product‑approval workflows accordingly.
• DCMs must enhance their surveillance, market‑integrity, and risk‑management frameworks for perpetual contracts, including monitoring of the referenced spot market, funding‑rate or cash‑flow mechanisms, and potential manipulation vectors stemming from the underlying asset.
• FCMs and clearing members should identify client exposure to perpetual futures, review margin models and risk limits, and ensure that risk disclosures, product descriptions, and account‑opening documentation accurately reflect the regulatory status and unique risks of perpetual futures.
• Compliance teams at DCMs and intermediaries should update policies and procedures for new product approval, explicitly flagging perpetual contracts as requiring heightened CFTC engagement and governance review before listing.
• Legal and regulatory affairs teams should brief senior management and boards on the policy statement, emphasizing that future perpetual contracts on non‑bitcoin or non‑covered asset classes carry additional regulatory scrutiny and potential delays due to the required case‑by‑case review.

What changed

• - The CFTC formally recognizes that perpetual contracts may be listed as “futures contracts” by DCMs, as evidenced by an order permitting listing of a perpetual contract referencing the spot price of...
• The Commission states that perpetual contracts have “unique characteristics” that vary by underlying asset, and therefore they will not be treated as a homogeneous product category for listing...
• For perpetual contracts referencing asset classes not covered by the contemporaneous bitcoin perpetual order, the Commission indicates that the appropriate path is a case‑by‑case review under CFTC...
• The policy statement signals that DCMs should expect closer CFTC scrutiny of perpetual contract design, including settlement mechanisms and underlying market integrity, before new perpetuals (beyond...
• The statement confirms that it is a policy statement rather than a binding rule, but it effectively sets Commission expectations for how DCMs must approach the listing of perpetual contracts going...

Key dates

Late May 2026

– A CFTC‑registered designated contract market files a federal complaint after being threatened with impending state enforcement under Rhode Island gambling laws

Friday, Late May 2026

– Rhode Island files a parallel state‑court complaint seeking significant civil penalties and demanding that prediction markets “stand down” and “disgorge their profits.”

28 May 2026

– The CFTC files a motion to intervene in the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island to block state enforcement and reiterate its claim of exclusive jurisdiction over CFTC‑registered prediction markets

Suggested considerations

• Review current and planned event or prediction‑market contracts to confirm that they are structured, documented, and marketed as commodity derivatives under the Commodity Exchange Act rather than as gaming or wagering products.
• Update internal legal and compliance memoranda on federal preemption and CFTC “exclusive jurisdiction” to reflect the CFTC’s latest public position and the ongoing Rhode Island and related state cases.
• Map state‑law exposure for event contracts by conducting a jurisdictional sweep of gambling, gaming, bucket‑shop, and “games of chance” statutes for key states where customers or operations are located, with particular focus on Rhode Island, Arizona, Connecticut, Illinois, New York, and Minnesota.
• Enhance product‑approval and new‑business committees’ procedures so that, before launching event contracts, they explicitly document CEA coverage, CFTC oversight, and a preemption analysis versus relevant state gambling laws.
• For CFTC‑registered contract markets, establish and maintain a litigation and regulatory‑strategy playbook for responding to state attorney‑general investigations or enforcement demands, including criteria for when to seek CFTC support or intervention.

What changed

• - The CFTC has formally sought to intervene in a U.S. District Court case in Rhode Island to halt the state’s attempt to apply state gambling laws and seek civil penalties against a CFTC‑registered...
• The Commission has publicly reaffirmed that event contracts traded on CFTC‑registered exchanges are “commodity derivatives” squarely within the CFTC’s regulatory remit under the Commodity Exchange...
• The CFTC is explicitly characterizing its authority over CFTC‑registered prediction markets as “exclusive jurisdiction,” signaling that state gambling regulators and attorneys general should not...
• The Rhode Island dispute is identified as part of a broader pattern of state challenges to CFTC jurisdiction over prediction markets, following similar or related litigation in Arizona, Connecticut,...
• The enforcement posture indicates that CFTC‑registered contract markets facing state actions can expect active CFTC litigation support when states attempt to apply gambling or gaming statutes to...

Key dates

19 May 2026

- CFTC Division of Enforcement issues the new cooperation advisory, which supersedes all prior cooperation and self‑reporting advisories and becomes the operative policy for ongoing and future enforcement matters

Suggested considerations

• Identify and catalogue all existing internal policies, playbooks, and checklists relating to CFTC investigations, dawn raids, inquiries, self‑reporting, and cooperation, and amend them to reflect the new advisory’s superseding status.
• Update the firm’s enforcement‑response framework to explicitly incorporate the new declination pathway, including clear decision criteria for when and how to voluntarily self‑report potential CFTC violations.
• Establish or refine escalation triggers for potential insider trading, fraud, manipulation, and market abuse in CFTC‑regulated markets to ensure that issues can be investigated and elevated quickly enough to support “prompt” and “voluntary” self‑reporting.
• Design and document a structured internal investigation protocol that can generate the level of factual development, analysis, and documentation needed to demonstrate “full cooperation,” including protocols for sharing findings, data, and analytics with the CFTC where appropriate.
• Implement procedures to rapidly secure, preserve, and collect relevant trading records, communications (including messaging apps), surveillance alerts, and algorithmic trading data so that the firm can cooperate effectively and avoid any appearance of obstruction or delay.

What changed

• - The CFTC Division of Enforcement has adopted a new, unified cooperation policy that expressly supersedes all prior Division cooperation and self‑reporting advisories (including the 2017 corporate...
• The new advisory establishes a clear “declination pathway” under which, absent aggravating circumstances, a respondent that voluntarily self‑reports, fully cooperates, timely and appropriately...
• The advisory formalizes that voluntary self‑reporting is a central prerequisite for the highest level of credit, distinguishing between cases with self‑reports (potential declination or high...
• The policy confirms that “full cooperation” will be a necessary condition for a declination, which in practice will require proactive, resource‑intensive engagement with Enforcement beyond mere...
• The advisory codifies that timely and appropriate remediation is a separate and indispensable requirement for top‑tier outcomes, emphasizing that firms must implement corrective measures before...

Key dates

September 4, 2024

- CFTC enforcement action filed against Matos and Aureus

April 13, 2026

- U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida enters consent order resolving claims against Matos (action against Aureus remains pending).[https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/9212-26]

Suggested considerations

• Registration verification: Confirm CPO/AP registration status via NFA BASIC (https://www.nfa.futures.org/basicnet/) before solicitations; prohibit any implication of CFTC "licensing" without proof.
• Marketing review: Audit all promotional materials for false claims (e.g., seals, signatures, fictitious licenses); require pre-approval by compliance.
• Fund segregation: Implement strict controls on pool participant funds, including third-party custody and daily reconciliations to prevent misappropriation.
• Controlling person policies: Document oversight duties for principals; conduct gap analyses for personal liability under CEA Section 13(b).
• Training: Mandatory annual training on CEA fraud provisions, with attestations.

What changed

• This is an enforcement action, not a rulemaking, so there are no new regulatory changes or requirements.
• Fraud in futures trading (CEA Section 6(c), 7 U.S.C. § 9).
• Fraud by associated persons of commodity pool operators (CPAs) (CFTC Regulation 4.41(a)(1), 17 C.F.R. § 4.41).
• Acting as an unregistered commodity pool operator (CPO) (CEA Section 4m(1), 7 U.S.C. § 6m).
• Controlling person liability for firm violations (CEA Section 13(b), 7 U.S.C. § 13c(b)), as applied to Matos over Aureus.[https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/9212-26]

Key dates

March 2026

- Arizona files 20-count misdemeanor criminal case against prediction market platform Kalshi, alleging illegal gambling and election betting

Week prior to April 2, 2026

- CFTC files complaints (with DOJ involvement) against Arizona, Connecticut, and Illinois seeking declaratory judgments on exclusive jurisdiction and permanent injunctions

April 9, 2026

- CFTC files motion for Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and Preliminary Injunction in U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona to halt state enforcement

April 10, 2026

- U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona grants CFTC's requested TRO, barring Arizona from pursuing criminal charges against CFTC-regulated DCMs. (Note: Ongoing litigation timelines for preliminary injunction and permanent relief remain undetermined.)

Suggested considerations

• Monitor federal court dockets in the District of Arizona for updates on the preliminary injunction hearing and broader cases against other states.
• Document compliance with CFTC regulations for event contracts to demonstrate adherence to federal law in any state inquiries.
• Review state exposure for prediction market activities, pausing non-federal compliant operations in high-risk states like Arizona pending resolution.
• Enhance legal consultations on federal preemption defenses for ongoing or potential state enforcement. https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/9211-26

What changed

There are no new regulatory requirements or changes imposed by this publication; instead, it documents a court-granted TRO that temporarily blocks Arizona's enforcement of state criminal and gambling laws against CFTC-regulated prediction markets, affirming CFTC's claimed exclusive jurisdiction over event contracts via federal preemption under the Commodity Exchange Act.

Key dates

May 2025

- Arizona issued initial cease-and-desist letter to Kalshi

December 2025

- Connecticut's Department of Consumer Protection issued cease-and-desist letters to Kalshi, Crypto.com, and Robinhood Derivatives

March 2026

- Arizona filed criminal charges against Kalshi executives

April 2, 2026

- CFTC and DOJ filed coordinated lawsuits against Arizona, Connecticut, and Illinois

April 9, 2026

- CFTC filed motion for preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order in U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona

Suggested considerations

• *For CFTC-Registered Prediction Market Operators:
• *Immediate Compliance Monitoring: Continue operating under CFTC registration while monitoring court proceedings; do not unilaterally cease operations in affected states pending injunction decisions.
• *Legal Coordination: Engage counsel to coordinate with CFTC enforcement efforts and provide evidence of compliance with federal registration requirements.
• *Documentation Preservation: Maintain comprehensive records demonstrating compliance with the Commodity Exchange Act and CFTC regulations to support the federal preemption argument.
• *State-Level Engagement: Respond to any outstanding cease-and-desist letters through counsel; do not ignore state enforcement communications, but assert federal preemption defenses.

What changed

• The CFTC's enforcement action establishes several critical legal positions:
• Federal Preemption Doctrine: The CFTC asserts that the Commodity Exchange Act grants it exclusive jurisdiction over event contracts and prediction markets, rendering state gambling laws inapplicable...
• Scope of Federal Authority: The CFTC claims "clear and longstanding exclusive jurisdiction" to regulate event contracts, positioning prediction markets as commodities derivatives rather than gambling...
• Injunctive Relief Sought: The CFTC is requesting both preliminary injunctions (immediate relief) and permanent injunctions (ongoing prohibition) preventing states from enforcing preempted laws...
• Declaratory Judgment Framework: The lawsuits seek court declarations that state gambling laws are "unconstitutional and invalid" if applied to prediction markets.

Key dates

March 31, 2026

Speech delivery; Outlines priorities and previews new cooperation policy advisory

Soon after March 31, 2026

New cooperation policy advisory issuance; Expected imminently; firms should monitor CFTC site for formal release

Suggested considerations

• Enhance surveillance: Implement robust monitoring for insider trading in prediction markets, manipulation in energy, disruptive trading, retail fraud signals, and AML/KYC red flags; prioritize misappropriated nonpublic info detection.
• Update policies: Revise insider trading protocols to align with CEA anti-fraud provisions; train staff on prediction market risks (debunking "no insider laws apply" myth).
• Strengthen cooperation readiness: Develop self-reporting/escalation processes, remediation plans, and documentation for declination credit under forthcoming policy; review prior CFTC advisories (e.g., 2025 mitigation matrix).
• Conduct gap analysis: Audit AML/KYC programs for willful violations; assess exposure in priority markets (energy, prediction/crypto, retail).
• Monitor updates: Subscribe to CFTC Press Room for cooperation advisory and related actions (e.g., Feb 25, 2026 Prediction Markets Advisory post-enforcement cases: https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/9185-26).

What changed

• - End of "regulation by enforcement": CFTC Enforcement will focus solely on policing fraud, abuse, and manipulation under existing CEA anti-fraud provisions, avoiding policy-setting via enforcement...
• Five explicit enforcement priorities: 1. Insider trading, with strong emphasis on prediction markets (e.g., misappropriation of nonpublic information violates CEA). 2.
• New cooperation policy advisory (forthcoming soon): Includes "significant changes" to declination policy, building on prior frameworks like mitigation-credit matrices and safe harbors for...