CFTC Ends No-Deny Policy, Easing Crypto Settlement Gag Orders

The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission has scrapped its decades-old no-deny settlement policy, giving crypto firms more room to publicly reject enforcement claims instead of swallowing the usual “pay up and shut up” routine.

• No-deny policy gone: The CFTC rescinds a 1998 rule that limited public denials in settlements.
• Crypto gets breathing room: Firms can push back more openly against enforcement allegations.
• SEC already moved: The CFTC follows the SEC’s reversal of its own no-deny rule.
• Gemini case resurfaces: The agency is now revisiting a $5 million settlement tied to a Bitcoin futures product.

The change sounds procedural, but it cuts straight into one of the more annoying tools regulators have used for years. Under the old CFTC policy, a company could settle a case only if it agreed not to publicly deny the allegations in the complaint or order. In plain English: you could pay the government, but you were expected to keep your mouth shut about whether the accusation was fair, accurate, or complete.

That kind of clause may make life easier for regulators who want a neat headline and a tidy record. It also leaves the public with a one-sided version of events, which is exactly why crypto firms have complained about it for so long. If a company believes the government has overreached, that company should not be forced into a speech gag as the price of closing the case. That is not transparency. That is bureaucratic hostage-taking with better branding.

The CFTC said the old policy may have created the impression it was trying to “shield itself from criticism.” That is a surprisingly candid admission, and it lands because the criticism is well-earned. When enforcement settlements muzzle one side, they can turn into polished press releases with legal language stapled on top. The public gets the sanitized version; everyone else is expected to nod politely and move on.

Michael Selig, the CFTC chairman, said the agency is aligning itself with regulators across the government. The CFTC’s move follows the SEC’s reversal in May, when that agency dropped its own no-deny policy, which had been in place since 1972. SEC Chair Paul Atkins described the change as ending a “restriction on criticism of the agency.” SEC Commissioner Hester Peirce argued that allowing both sides to speak openly “would support clearer enforcement records.”

That point matters. Enforcement records shape how courts, market participants, and the public understand what happened in a case. If only the regulator gets to speak, the record can look cleaner than it really is. Letting a defendant publicly deny allegations does not mean the defendant is right, but it does make the process less like a scripted confession and more like an actual adversarial system.

The CFTC’s move also lands in the middle of a very specific crypto flashpoint: Gemini. The Winklevoss-founded exchange agreed in January 2025 to pay a $5 million settlement over CFTC claims tied to alleged misleading statements involving a Bitcoin futures product. Gemini settled without admitting or denying the allegations, but that was not the end of the matter.

The agency has since asked a federal judge to vacate the prior order against Gemini — meaning it wants the earlier ruling erased. Reuters also reported that Gemini agreed not to seek a refund of the $5 million penalty. More notably, the CFTC now says the Gemini false-statement case should not have been brought. Selig has reportedly described the matter as “politically targeted.”

That is a serious line to drop. If a regulator is signaling that one of its own crypto enforcement actions was politically motivated or legally shaky, that suggests more than a simple policy cleanup. It hints at a broader reappraisal of how aggressively the government went after crypto firms, and whether some of those cases were driven by enforcement theater rather than clean legal logic.

To be clear, this does not mean the CFTC has gone soft. The agency still has the power to bring cases, impose penalties, and, when it chooses, seek admissions of facts or liability in future settlements. That last part matters: a company can still be required to admit what happened or admit wrongdoing. The change is about speech restrictions in settlements, not about stripping the agency of its enforcement authority.

The CFTC also said it will not enforce existing no-deny provisions in older settlements. That does not magically unwind every prior case, and it does not let companies rewrite history because they suddenly feel chatty. But it does weaken one of the regulator’s more coercive habits, and for crypto firms that have spent years being told to settle quietly and take the reputational hit, that is no small shift.

The bigger picture is pretty clear: U.S. regulators seem to be backing away from the old “settle and shut up” model. The SEC made the first move, and now the CFTC has followed. That suggests a wider policy reset in Washington, at least on the speech terms attached to enforcement deals. For an industry that has spent years dealing with inconsistent rules, selective pressure, and a steady stream of “trust us, bro” enforcement, any move toward more open records is a welcome break from the usual nonsense.

Still, a healthy dose of skepticism is warranted. Rolling back a no-deny policy does not mean regulators suddenly discovered libertarian virtue. It also does not mean every crypto company was a saint and every enforcement action was bogus. Some firms absolutely did shady, reckless, or outright fraudulent things. The point is narrower: if regulators are going to accuse firms publicly, they should not be able to force those firms into silence as the price of settlement. That is how due process gets turned into PR management.

For bitcoin and crypto markets, the practical takeaway is simple. The CFTC is loosening a long-standing speech restriction, the SEC has already done the same, and older crypto cases — especially Gemini’s — are now being reexamined through a less rigid lens. That could mean more transparency, more public dispute, and fewer settlements that feel like gag orders with a signature line. For once, the bureaucracy may be getting a little less comfortable, which is probably a healthy thing.

What did the CFTC change?

The agency rescinded its 1998 no-deny policy, which had blocked settlements if defendants continued publicly denying the allegations.

Why does the no-deny policy matter?

It forced companies to settle without publicly saying they disagreed with the regulator’s claims, which many crypto firms saw as a speech muzzle.

Is the CFTC ending crypto enforcement?

No. The agency can still bring cases, seek penalties, and require admissions of facts or liability in future settlements.

Why is Gemini such a big part of this shift?

Gemini’s $5 million settlement over a Bitcoin futures product, plus the CFTC’s effort to vacate the order, suggests the agency is revisiting older crypto enforcement decisions.

Does this erase old settlements?

No. It changes how the CFTC handles settlement speech terms going forward and says existing no-deny provisions won’t be enforced, but it does not automatically undo prior cases.

Does this improve transparency?

Probably. Letting both sides speak openly can create a clearer enforcement record instead of a one-sided regulator narrative dressed up as final truth.