The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission rescinded a policy that barred settlement parties from denying wrongdoing in enforcement cases on June 3, 2026 [1].
This shift removes a long-standing restriction on public speech, potentially changing how corporations and individuals manage their reputations and legal liabilities during federal disputes.
The agency scrapped the policy, which had been in place for approximately 30 years [1]. Under the previous rule, the CFTC generally prevented defendants from airing grievances or denying allegations as a condition of reaching a settlement [1], [3]. The change allows those who settle cases to speak publicly about the proceedings [3].
A formal press release regarding the decision was issued on June 5, 2026 [2]. The agency said that the move provides more flexibility in how it structures enforcement actions with companies [3].
The decision follows pressure from the National Consumer Law Attorneys (NCLA), a group that challenged the legality of such restrictions. An NCLA representative said the agency had "run away from its unlawful gag rule" [2].
This policy change aligns the CFTC with recent updates made by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), which also moved to allow settling defendants to deny allegations [3]. The agency said that the removal of the rule is intended to improve transparency and provide the commission with more versatility during negotiations [2], [3].
A CFTC spokesperson said removing the gag rule gives the agency "more flexibility" in settling enforcement actions with companies [3].
“The CFTC has scrapped its 30-year-old gag rule, allowing people who settle cases to speak publicly about them.”
The removal of the 'no-deny' clause represents a significant pivot in federal regulatory strategy. By allowing defendants to settle without admitting guilt or being silenced, the CFTC may find it easier to resolve complex cases quickly, while defendants can avoid the reputational damage of a forced admission. This move, mirroring the SEC's approach, suggests a broader trend toward reducing restrictive settlement terms that have faced increasing legal challenges from consumer advocacy groups.
