Samsung Electronics America is seeking at least $186 million in reparations from CMA CGM at the Federal Maritime Commission, alleging the French ocean carrier imposed more than 121,000 unlawful demurrage and detention charges while reneging on inland delivery obligations under store-door bills of lading.

The complaint, filed at the FMC, itemizes roughly $148 million in disputed demurrage, detention, rail storage and related costs, plus at least $8.1 million in additional inland-transport expenses Samsung says it absorbed to keep cargo moving. The remaining ~$30 million is prejudgment interest; legal fees could push the total above $186 million.

What does Samsung actually allege?

Samsung's case turns on store-door service, a contract structure under which the carrier accepts responsibility for moving containers from an overseas origin through a U.S. port and on to a named inland destination. CMA CGM began handling Samsung's containers under that arrangement in January 2020.

By mid-2020, Samsung alleges, the carrier repeatedly failed to pull containers promptly from marine and intermodal terminals. The delay cascades — boxes stack at the port, dwell extends, demurrage and detention bills follow.

Samsung says it absorbed more than 26,000 individual demurrage charges and over 94,000 detention-type charges it considers the carrier's responsibility, not its own. Samsung also accuses CMA CGM of converting some store-door shipments to container-yard arrangements without consent, a change that shifts last-mile responsibility back to the shipper.

How did rail storage pile up?

The complaint offers a worked example. A container moved from Busan, South Korea, through the Port of Long Beach to The Colony, Texas, in 2021. Samsung alleges the shipment accumulated roughly $162,800 in rail storage fees after the delivery structure flipped from store-door to container-yard mid-stream.

Layered on top: Samsung says CMA CGM deployed cargo and finance holds — withholding release or delivery of containers — to pressure payment of disputed invoices. Samsung contends the practice violates Section 41102(c) of the Shipping Act, which obligates common carriers to maintain "just and reasonable practices" on cargo receipt, handling, storage and delivery.

How is CMA CGM responding?

The carrier has asked the FMC to dismiss the case.

"CMA CGM disputes Samsung Electronics America's allegations of Shipping Act violations and has filed its response with the Federal Maritime Commission, requesting dismissal of the complaint," a company representative said in an emailed statement. "CMA CGM's position is set out in its filing. As the proceedings are ongoing, we will not comment further on the substance of the dispute."

CMA CGM has framed the underlying operational problems as a product of "the exceptional operating conditions of the Covid-19 pandemic." That defense carries weight only up to a point — Samsung's complaint stretches into 2021, well past peak U.S. port congestion.

What the filing leaves unanswered

The FMC has not disclosed a procedural schedule; commissioners rarely telegraph outcomes.

Samsung's filing leaves several questions open: the average value per disputed charge, which would show how concentrated the demurrage billing was across 121,000 line items; the share of detention charges tied to rail storage versus terminal issues; and whether any of the $148 million had already been paid under protest.

What does the case mean for shippers?

For BCOs and 3PLs with store-door service in play, the dispute reframes a familiar risk: when a carrier fails at the terminal, who pays for the resulting detention?

Samsung's argument is that the obligation flows through the bill of lading, not back to the consignee — a position the FMC has signaled support for in past demurrage and detention rulemakings. The complaint also revives scrutiny of cargo and finance holds as enforcement tools. The FMC has already fined MSC and Maersk millions for Shipping Act violations; a CMA CGM loss here would harden the commission's posture on hold practices.

Expect an FMC procedural order within 60 to 90 days; that filing will set the timetable for discovery, hearings, and any reparations award.