Samsung Electronics America has filed a complaint seeking at least $186m (€160m) with the Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) against CMA CGM, accusing the French carrier of breaching the Shipping Act in its handling of inland transport and the billing of detention, demurrage and rail storage charges. The complaint, served on 1 September 2026 and published by the FMC on 4 September, concerns “store door” shipments handled by the carrier between 2020 and 2023. Samsung says that from January 2020 the company had replaced traditional port-to-port contracts with “store door” agreements, under which CMA CGM was responsible for both the ocean leg and inland delivery to warehouses and distribution centres in the United States, with the final delivery location stated on the bills of lading. According to the complaint, from mid-2020 the French carrier repeatedly failed to collect and deliver containers from ports and rail terminals on time, causing delays and costs that Samsung attributes entirely to CMA CGM as the contractual party responsible for the full route.
The bill presented covers more than 121,000 charges: more than 26,000 for demurrage and over 94,000 for detention, in addition to rail storage items. Among the disputed examples cited by Samsung is a container routed from Busan to Long Beach and bound for The Colony, Texas, which was allegedly unilaterally converted into a “merchant haulage” shipment on arrival, accruing more than $162,000 (€140,000) in rail storage charges. Another batch of containers held up by a shortage of industrial vehicles allegedly generated around $3.75m (€3.2m) in similar costs. The total compensation sought is at least $186m (€160m). It consists of $148m (€127m) in charges deemed improper, $8.1m (€7m) in mitigation costs, including the direct management of inland transport, the hiring of additional staff and the use of external container depots, and $30m (€26m) in accrued interest. Samsung reserves the right to seek a higher amount for lost revenue, legal expenses and other related costs.
The complaint also describes the use of “finance holds” and account suspensions linked to shipments that were not under dispute, which Samsung says were used to put pressure on the company to pay the invoices in question. The Korean company says it sent a formal notice in July 2024, later signing a tolling agreement with CMA CGM and meeting the carrier’s representatives several times in 2025 and 2026, without obtaining either refunds or an overall settlement of the dispute. In the same complaint, Samsung says CMA CGM had already attributed some of the delays to port and rail congestion and shortages of vehicles and road haulage drivers, circumstances that, according to the Korean company, do not release the carrier from the obligations it assumed under the store door contracts. CMA CGM has rejected the allegations and says it acted in compliance with the applicable rules. The French carrier has 25 days from the 1 September notification to formally file its response to the case.
The FMC has never ruled that detention, demurrage or rail storage charges are unlawful in themselves. The criterion applied by the Commission is functional: these charges must incentivise the efficient use of containers and terminal space, and must not penalise the cargo interest when it is not reasonably able to collect, move or return the unit. In July 2026, a US appeals court upheld the application of this principle in a case involving Evergreen, finding detention charges unreasonable when the equipment could not realistically be returned.
CMA CGM itself has been involved in a similar previous case with the FMC. On 31 May 2024, the carrier reached a compromise agreement with the Commission, paying $1.975m (€1.7m) to close an investigation into an overly broad definition of the term “merchant” in the bill of lading, which had resulted in payments being charged to third parties that were not required to pay them. Under the same agreement, the carrier amended its tariff rules in the United States and committed to complying with the detention and demurrage regulations that came into force on 28 May 2024.
Samsung’s complaint came a few days after the FMC approved a confidential agreement between the same Korean company and the carrier Wan Hai Lines over a similar dispute, and refers to other proceedings brought by major importers against ocean carriers’ billing practices under the Ocean Shipping Reform Act. This case exceeds the previous most significant case in maritime transport: in 2025, the FMC awarded $45m (€39m) on a $161m (€138m) claim brought against OOCL by Butterfly One, the bankruptcy administrator of Bed Bath & Beyond.
Antonio Illariuzzi
