CMA CGM Hits Back at Samsung's $186 Million FMC Complaint, Citing Pandemic Profits

## CMA CGM Hits Back at Samsung's $186 Million FMC Complaint French container shipping giant CMA CGM has mounted a forceful counter-argument against Samsung's $186 million complaint lodged with the US Federal Maritime Commission (FMC), contending that the South Korean electronics conglomerate was itself unprepared for the dramatic surge in import demand during the COVID-19 pandemic — even as it reaped substantial financial rewards from it. According to **Seatrade Maritime**, CMA CGM's defence centres on the assertion that Samsung 'profited handsomely' during the pandemic period while simultaneously failing to adequately plan for the unprecedented spike in consumer electronics imports that strained global supply chains. The carrier's position implies that Samsung's logistical difficulties were, at least in part, a consequence of the shipper's own operational shortcomings rather than any wrongdoing by the carrier. The dispute represents one of the more high-profile shipper-versus-carrier battles to reach the FMC in recent years, reflecting broader tensions that emerged during the pandemic-era freight market when ocean carriers recorded record profits while shippers complained of equipment shortages, rolled bookings, and inflated surcharges. The FMC, which has significantly expanded its enforcement posture under the Ocean Shipping Reform Act of 2022 (OSRA-22), provides shippers with a formal mechanism to challenge what they consider unreasonable or discriminatory practices by ocean common carriers. Samsung's $186 million claim is among the largest individual shipper complaints to come before the commission. CMA CGM's rebuttal is likely to set the tone for what could become a protracted regulatory proceeding. The carrier's argument — that a major, sophisticated global shipper should bear responsibility for its own supply chain resilience — may resonate with some observers, but will face scrutiny from FMC adjudicators tasked with determining whether carrier conduct met the standards required under US shipping law. The outcome of the case could have implications beyond the two parties involved, potentially influencing how carriers document and justify their allocation decisions and surcharge practices during future periods of market disruption. The FMC proceeding is ongoing, and no ruling has yet been issued.