CMA CGM has asked the US Federal Maritime Commission to dismiss a complaint brought by Samsung Electronics America seeking at least US$186m in reparations for demurrage, detention and other charges accumulated during the Covid-19 supply chain disruption.

Samsung filed its complaint with the FMC in August, alleging the French carrier violated the Shipping Act between 2020 and 2023. The claim covers more than 121,000 individual charges and centres on "store door" shipments, under which Samsung says CMA CGM bore responsibility for inland delivery from mid-2020.

In a verified answer filed with the FMC, CMA CGM denied every substantive allegation and asked the Commission to "dismiss the Complaint and discontinue" the proceeding. The carrier argued Samsung's claims are insufficiently specific, that several categories of damages are improper, and that responsibility for many costs rests with Samsung itself or third parties.

CMA CGM framed Samsung's action as part of a broader effort to offload pandemic-era losses onto ocean carriers.

"Samsung seeks to distract from its own failings by alleging that CMA CGM should bear responsibility for costs that Samsung and its affiliates explicitly agreed to in contracts that they negotiated and knowingly signed," the carrier said in its filing.

What is the procedural dispute?

The carrier challenged the granularity of Samsung's complaint, noting that some allegedly disputed containers were never identified by number. CMA CGM argued that even where container numbers appear, "one container can be used for multiple shipments during any given period of time," undermining the linkage between charge and shipment.

CMA CGM acknowledged issuing demurrage and detention invoices to Samsung, but said the bills were drawn "in accordance with the terms of the Service Contracts." The carrier said it merely sought payment of charges due under service contracts, bills of lading and its published tariff.

On inland transportation, CMA CGM conceded it arranged some rail moves but denied the broader allegations. It disputed Samsung's reading of "store door" terms, saying those obligations were governed by service contracts, bills of lading and supplementary arrangements.

What is CMA CGM's jurisdictional defence?

CMA CGM argues the FMC has no authority over charges levied by railroads, terminals, truckers or storage facilities. The carrier also contends that Samsung's claim under Section 41102(c) of the Shipping Act is effectively a breach-of-contract dispute that belongs in federal court, not before the Commission.

The carrier adds that Samsung failed to use CMA CGM's dispute procedures for detention, demurrage and per diem charges and therefore waived its claims.

What about Samsung's own pandemic handling?

CMA CGM used much of its filing to characterise Samsung as the architect of its own disruption. The carrier pointed to surging revenues at the electronics group during 2020–2023 and argued the importer lacked the capacity to receive the volumes it chose to bring in.

"When the dust settles it will become abundantly clear that Samsung's revenues during the relevant timeframe increased massively, that it profited handsomely from supplying its products to the American consumer during the Covid 19 pandemic, but that it was unprepared for the substantial growth and lacked the capabilities to handle and receive the increased volumes it elected to import," CMA CGM said.

The carrier concluded that neither the Shipping Act nor the contracts allow Samsung to "shift responsibility in this manner."

What happens next?

The FMC assigned the dispute to its Office of Administrative Law Judges. An initial decision is due by 1 September 2027, with a final Commission ruling scheduled for 15 March 2028. The procedural calendar leaves both companies more than two years to prepare expert testimony, billing records and container-level evidence across the 121,000 disputed charges.

The outcome will test how far the Shipping Act reaches into inland leg operations and whether the FMC can adjudicate disputes that pull in rail, terminal and trucking counterparties alongside ocean carriers.