A United States court will examine a lawsuit filed by a Swedish company against a Danish one. The former is the electric truck manufacturer Einride, and the latter is the global maritime transport and logistics group Maersk. The legal dispute stems from a claim lodged on 15 November 2024 with the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, registered under number 24STCV30286. According to the filings, Einride argues that Maersk breached agreements signed in 2022 for the deployment of a fleet of 300 electric trucks for the US operations of its Performance Team division. The aim was to support the reduction of emissions across Maersk’s North American network as part of the group’s pathway towards net-zero emissions by 2040.
The original contract, publicly announced in March 2022, provided for the phased delivery of vehicles between 2023 and 2025. According to the Danish specialist media outlet Shippingwatch, Maersk halted the commitment in 2024, deeming the Swedish manufacturer unable to meet the agreed delivery schedule. Einride, however, maintains that the termination occurred without justification consistent with the contractual terms and with direct repercussions on the emissions-reduction goals the collaboration was supposed to support. The reference to net-zero emissions is central in the court documents, which highlight the commitments both parties made when signing the five-year agreement.
The collapsed deal had significant scope. The 2022 announcement described the partnership as the largest initiative to make freight transport more sustainable in the US market. The agreement covered not only the supply of class 8 electric trucks but also an integrated technological infrastructure: 150 charging stations, connectivity systems and the saga operating platform developed by Einride for electric fleet management. The network was expected to handle over one million shipments during the contract period, impacting storage, distribution and transport processes across key logistics hubs operated by Performance Team.
The complexity of the case is heightened by the fact that Maersk Growth, the group’s investment arm, participated in a 2021 funding round for Einride, publicly presenting the strategy as part of its transition towards electric road transport. The abrupt rupture in 2024 raised questions about the consistency between Maersk’s industrial and financial commitments, an issue that emerges in the lawsuit as a relevant contextual element.
Financially, the dispute unfolds at a challenging moment for the Swedish company. According to figures reported by Scandinavian media, Einride reduced its operating losses by 35% in 2024 compared with the previous year, after closing 2023 with a deficit exceeding 1.3 billion Swedish kronor. Liquidity pressures had led to cost-cutting measures and staff reductions, while the company continued expanding internationally with clients in the food, beverage and industrial sectors. In November 2025, Einride announced a planned listing through a merger with a special-purpose vehicle, valuing the company at around 1.8 billion dollars, roughly 1.7 billion euros.
The case involves three entities: Einride AB, Einride US Inc and Einride Inc. In January 2025, a motion to seal certain parts of the complaint was filed and approved without opposition. The case is currently assigned to Department 53 of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Neither Maersk nor Einride has provided detailed explanations on the specific operational reasons for the split, while it remains confirmed that Maersk has placed parallel orders with other manufacturers, including Volvo, as part of its broader plan to electrify its North American fleet.
