Samsung Electronics America is demanding at least $186m from CMA CGM in one of the largest shipper claims to arise from the pandemic-era container crunch, alleging that the French carrier imposed hefty cargo charges while failing to complete inland deliveries in the US that had already been paid for.

The complaint, formally served by the Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) this month, focuses on store-door shipments handled by CMA CGM from 2020 onwards. The FMC is the US federal agency that regulates ocean shipping, and demurrage and detention fees - charges for containers that linger at terminals or are returned late - became a flashpoint during the pandemic, when port congestion, rail backlogs and equipment shortages made it difficult or impossible for shippers to collect or return boxes on time. Samsung alleges the carrier repeatedly failed to move containers from US marine and rail terminals to their inland destinations, while passing the resulting demurrage, detention and rail-storage bills back to the electronics giant.

According to Samsung, the dispute involves more than 121,000 individual charges. The complaint breaks these down into more than 26,000 demurrage charges and over 94,000 detention-type charges, together with rail storage and other fees, which Samsung says were assessed on a normal and recurring basis.

Central to the case is CMA CGM's handling of so-called store-door cargo, under which the carrier is paid to move containers beyond the discharge port to an agreed inland destination. Samsung alleges that CMA CGM instead began terminating or diverting some of those moves after discharge, converting them into container-yard (CY) shipments and leaving Samsung to arrange the final leg on its own.

One example cited in the filing concerns a container shipped from Busan to The Colony, Texas, via Long Beach in August 2021. Samsung claims CMA CGM switched the move to merchant haulage after arrival and left Samsung to organise inland delivery, with the box ultimately accruing $162,799 in rail storage charges.

In another instance, a group of containers caught up in a chassis shortage at an inland rail ramp generated $3.75m in charges, according to Samsung. The company claims CMA CGM required it to pay rail storage directly before the boxes would be released, even though Samsung had no contractual relationship with the railroad.

Samsung has also challenged CMA CGM's use of cargo and credit holds. In April 2022, it claims, 40 containers at New York and New Jersey were blocked from moving because of a disputed $590,000 charge involving a CMA CGM affiliate in Mexico.

The damages claim currently consists of $148m in allegedly unlawful demurrage, detention, rail-storage and associated costs; at least $8.1m Samsung spent taking over inland transportation and other mitigation work; and at least $30m in prejudgment interest. Samsung is additionally seeking lost revenue plus employee and legal costs that have yet to be quantified, meaning the ultimate amount claimed could rise further.

The case did not reach the FMC without prior settlement efforts. Samsung says it sent CMA CGM a formal demand in July 2024, after which the companies entered into a tolling agreement. Representatives met several times during 2025 and 2026, but Samsung says those talks failed to produce repayment or a broader resolution.

The filing is the latest in a growing series of FMC disputes Samsung has pursued over pandemic-era container charges, part of a broader wave of shipper litigation seeking refunds of fees accumulated during the 2020-2022 supply-chain crisis. As Splash reported in May, the company took Wan Hai Lines to the commission over more than $1.2m of detention, demurrage and related fees tied to store-door cargo. Samsung also has ongoing proceedings involving COSCO, HMM and OOCL.

Last year, an FMC administrative law judge awarded Samsung $3.68m after finding certain ZIM cargo holds and practices unreasonable under the Shipping Act. That initial decision remains under commission review, with the deadline for a final decision currently pushed to October 20.

CMA CGM itself has faced repeated scrutiny of its billing practices. In 2024, the carrier paid $1.975m under an FMC compromise agreement over allegations that it used an overly broad definition of "merchant" to demand payment from parties that should not have been billed. The French liner did not admit violations under that settlement and also agreed to refunds or waivers for affected parties.

The regulatory landscape around detention and demurrage has hardened considerably since the height of the supply-chain crisis. The FMC's central test remains whether such charges genuinely serve as an incentive to move cargo and return equipment. In July, a US appeals court upheld the commission's application of that principle in an Evergreen case, including its finding that detention charges imposed when equipment could not realistically be returned were unreasonable. That framework is likely to shape how the Samsung complaint is assessed, since the electronics giant's allegations centre on charges arising after the carrier's own delivery obligations went unmet.

The FMC has assigned Samsung's complaint to its Office of Administrative Law Judges. CMA CGM has 25 days from the September 1 service date to respond. An initial decision is due by September 1, 2027, with a final commission decision scheduled by March 15, 2028.

Source: Splash247