17 C.F.R. § 180.2
Prohibition on price manipulation
It shall be unlawful for any person, directly or indirectly, to manipulate or attempt to manipulate the price of any swap, or of any commodity in interstate commerce, or for future delivery on or subject to the rules of any registered entity.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15
cases (8 in the last 5 years), 1987–2026 · leading case: U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Kraft Foods Group, Inc.
U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Kraft Foods Group, Inc. (2015)
“See 17 C.F.R. § 180.2 . Regulation 180.2 is titled “Prohibition on price manipulation,” and reads: it “shall be unlawful for any person, directly or indirectly, to manipulate or attempt to manipulate the price of any swap, or of any commodity in interstate commerce, or for.”
Ploss v. Kraft Foods Group, Inc. (2016)
“17 C.F.R. § 180.2 (“It shall be unlawful for any person, directly or indirectly, to manipulate or attempt to manipulate the price of any swap, or of any commodity in interstate commerce, or for future delivery on or subject to the rules of any registered entity,”).”
John F. Belom v. National Futures Association and Joy Ju (2002)
“at 312-23 (quoting 17 C.F.R. § 180.2 (1976)). 3 . Belom attempts to overcome his waiver by citing Amcast Indus.”
Harry v. Total Gas & Power North America, Inc. (2017)
“2, 17 C.F.R. § 180.2 . Count Two alleges that the defendants engaged in unlawful manipulation by distributing to Platts and NGI “false- or misleading or inaccurate reports of their uneconomic trades” “knowing, or acting in *412 reckless disregard of the fact that such report[s]…”
Dennis Nagel v. Adm Investor Services, Inc. (2000)
“A regulation promulgated under the Commodity Exchange Act, 17 C.F.R. § 180.2 ; see id. § 180.3(b)(7), imposes certain procedural formalities on arbitrations under the Act, such as a right to cross-examine witnesses, that are not found in the Federal Arbitration Act, under which…”
Geldermann, Inc., and Board of Trade of the City of Chicago, Intervening-Appellee v. Commodity Futures Trading Commissio (1987)
“17 C.F.R. § 180.2 (1976). The Commission believed, as it still does, that its regulations require a contract market “to provide a procedure where the member must arbitrate when called upon to do so.”
Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Gorman (2023)
“1”) in contrast to the standard applied to claims arising under 17 C.F.R. Section 180.2 (“Rule 180.2”). (See Dkt.”
Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Gorman (2022)
“2, 17 C.F.R. § 180.2 . Count III alleges Gorman made false statements to the CFTC in violation of Section 6(c)(2) of the CEA, 7 U.”
In Re Platinum and Palladium Antitrust Litigation (2023)
“6 Private parties have a cause of action to sue for violations of the CEA under section 22 of the Act, which provides that “[a]ny person … who violates this chapter or who 6 See also 17 C.F.R. § 180.2 (“It shall be unlawful for any person, directly or indirectly, to manipulate…”
Two Roads Shared Trust v. John Does (2023)
“§§ 6c, 13(a) and 17 C.F.R. § 180.2 when it plausibly alleges that the (a) defendant possessed the ability to influence prices, (b) an artificial price existed, (c) defendant caused the artificial price, and (d) defendant specifically intended to cause the artificial price.”
LJM Partners, Ltd. v. Does (2023)
“§§ 6c, 13(a) and 17 C.F.R. § 180.2 when it plausibly alleges that the (a) defendant possessed the ability to influence prices, (b) an artificial price existed, (c) defendant caused the artificial price, and (d) defendant specifically intended to cause the artificial price.”
United States v. Phillips (2025)
“See 17 C.F.R. § 180.2 (“It shall be unlawful for any person .”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.