FMC recovers US$1.9m from Maersk over detention billing breaches

THE US Federal Maritime Commission has secured a US$1.9‑million civil penalty from Maersk A/S after an investigation found the carrier had issued detention invoices to parties who were not contractually responsible for the charges.

The FMC said the settlement resolves allegations that Maersk billed third parties who had not agreed to be bound by the line’s bills of lading, service contracts or tariffs.

The practice was deemed inconsistent with obligations under the US Shipping Act and the billing‑fairness requirements strengthened under the Ocean Shipping Reform Act.

Under the terms of the agreement, Maersk has ceased the practice, committed to amending its US tariff rules, and will issue refunds or waivers to affected parties. The tariff change will narrow the definition of “merchant” to shippers, consignees and beneficial cargo owners, aligning it with the definition used in US regulations.

The FMC noted that Maersk did not admit liability, but cooperated with the investigation and agreed to corrective measures. All civil penalty payments will be deposited into the US Treasury’s General Fund.

The Commission said the action forms part of its ongoing enforcement program targeting improper billing and detention‑and‑demurrage practices across the container sector.

The enforcement action comes amid a broader FMC focus on detention‑and‑demurrage billing practices following widespread industry concerns during the pandemic‑era congestion. OSRA 2022 introduced new statutory requirements for clearer, fairer and more transparent billing, including mandatory invoice elements and prohibitions on charging parties who lack contractual responsibility. Since then, the Commission has prioritised investigations into carriers whose billing systems or tariff structures have created compliance risks.

Maersk is not the first major carrier to face scrutiny under the strengthened regime. The FMC has previously announced settlements with other lines over similar issues, including improper billing, failure to provide adequate dispute mechanisms and the use of overly broad “merchant” clauses that captured freight forwarders, truckers and other intermediaries. The Commission has repeatedly warned that such clauses cannot be used to shift liability to entities that never agreed to the underlying transport contract.

The Commission’s Bureau of Enforcement, Investigations and Compliance has also stepped up its monitoring of how carriers apply detention and demurrage during equipment shortages, port congestion and terminal closures. The FMC’s interpretive rule on detention and demurrage — which emphasises the “incentive principle” — remains central to these assessments, requiring charges to serve a genuine operational purpose rather than functioning as revenue‑generating penalties.

Industry groups in the US have broadly supported the FMC’s more assertive stance, arguing that clearer billing rules reduce disputes and improve supply‑chain efficiency. However, carriers have cautioned that the complexity of multi‑party logistics arrangements can create grey areas, particularly where intermediaries handle bookings or container movements. The Maersk settlement underscores the Commission’s expectation that carriers must ensure their billing systems and tariff definitions align with statutory requirements.