The Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) slapped Maersk with a $1.9 million civil fine over several violations of the Shipping Act including improperly billing companies with detention fees against parties that had not agreed to be bound by certain contract terms.
Maersk paid the penalty and agreed to end the billing practices.
According to the FMC, the case focused on allegations that Maersk invoiced companies that were not legally responsible for detention fees under the terms of its service contracts and tariff rules.
Not to be confused with the common definition of “tariff” that has been the center of President Donald Trump’s trade policy, a tariff in ocean shipping terms refers to a carrier’s publicly filed schedule of rates, charges, terms and conditions governing shipments. For carriers serving the U.S. market, these tariffs function as legally enforceable contracts and spell out points like who is getting billed for the charges and demurrage and detention rules.
Alongside agreeing to pay the penalty, Maersk will also issue refunds and waivers to impacted third parties. The ocean carrier did not admit to violations of the Shipping Act or commission regulations.
Maersk agreed to revise the terms governing its U.S. ocean shipping services, narrowing the parties that can be considered a “merchant” under its tariff and bills of lading to shippers, consignees and beneficial cargo owners (BCOs).
Upon the passing of the Ocean Shipping Reform Act of 2022 (OSRA), the FMC was granted more oversight over ocean carriers, namely by enabling them to enforce and levy penalties for Shipping Act violations. The expansion followed numerous complaints from American shippers in the wake of global supply chain bottlenecks throughout 2021 and 2022, who had alleged that container shipping companies were bypassing them for service and charging them excessive late fees.
According to FMC chairman Laura DiBella, who has served in the role since January, “nearly all” of the major rulemakings required by OSRA have been completed, with the agency making “significant progress” on outstanding rulemakings including the creation of a shipping exchange registry and the definition unfair and unjustly discriminatory methods.
In a testimony before Congress Wednesday as part of the FMC’s $40 million 2027 budget request, DiBella said the FMC would remain steadfast in fulfilling its commitment to U.S. shippers and consumers, “as evidenced by the significant increase in cases, investigations, and monitoring.”
“The FMC will continue to use the full scope of our enforcement authorities, where appropriate, to protect exporters and importers from potential anticompetitive or unfair and deceptive behavior,” DiBella said.
The agency has made its impact felt across major players in the ocean freight industry.
In January, the commission imposed a $22.7 million civil fine against Mediterranean Shipping Company (MSC) over billing violations tied to detention and demurrage charges, as well as repeated overcharges tied to certain containers. The FMC found that MSC wrongly invoiced certain customs brokers and forwarders with the D&D fees.
The agency got a victory in April when a federal appeals court upheld its ruling against Evergreen for charging late fees against a trucking company when the Port of Savannah was closed for three days, denying the carrier a petition for review. The FMC had found that the container shipping firm acted unreasonably in imposing $510 in detention fees after the trucking company was delayed in retrieved and returning equipment on time.
The commission’s role in how it handles disputes between ocean carriers and shippers is being challenged in a federal court, with Cosco subsidiary Orient Overseas Container Line (OOCL) calling the procedures unconstitutional.
OOCL took the fight to the FMC after being ordered to pay the estate of Bed Bath & Beyond $45.6 million for failing to meet several service commitments.
The China-based ocean carrier sought an injunction against the enforcement of the ruling, arguing that the commission’s legal jurisdiction should be heard in a federal court before a jury, rather than an executive-branch appointed judge.
If OOCL wins that case, it could again reshape enforcement of these penalties, and shift how Shipping Act-related disputes are handled going ahead.
