Who can legally be charged detention fees under this ruling?

Per the FMC settlement, detention charges can only be assessed against parties explicitly bound by the carrier's contracts, bills of lading, or tariffs. The FMC clarified that 'merchant' in Maersk's tariffs is limited to shippers, consignees, and beneficial cargo interests. Third parties without contractual consent cannot be charged detention fees.

What must Maersk do to comply with the settlement?

Maersk must: (1) stop assessing detention charges to non-consenting third parties, (2) amend its U.S. tariff rules to clearly define merchant status, (3) provide refunds and waivers to impacted third parties, and (4) align its billing practices with its contractual obligations. Maersk did not admit to violations but agreed to these corrective actions.

Does this settlement affect other ocean carriers?

While the settlement is specific to Maersk, it establishes regulatory guidance for the entire ocean freight industry. Other carriers should expect similar scrutiny of their detention billing practices if they charge fees to parties not explicitly bound by contract. The precedent strengthens FMC enforcement expectations around billing transparency and contractual alignment.

What should shippers do to protect themselves from improper detention charges?

Shippers should: (1) review all service contracts and tariffs with carriers before shipment, (2) verify which parties are named as merchants or obligors, (3) document all third-party billing arrangements in writing, (4) audit detention invoices to ensure charges are applied only to authorized parties, and (5) request clarity from carriers on their tariff definitions and billing authority.

Where does the $1.9 million penalty go?

The penalty is paid to the U.S. General Fund, not directly to the Federal Maritime Commission. This is standard for maritime civil penalties and reflects the government-wide nature of the enforcement action rather than an internal FMC revenue mechanism.

Trade Policy & Tariffs

Moderate

Maersk Fined $1.9M Over Improper Detention Charge Billing

May 29, 2026

Get tomorrow's supply chain signal

Daily supply-chain brief. Free, unsubscribe anytime.

The signal

9 million civil penalty to the Federal Maritime Commission for billing detention charges to third parties who had not consented to or been bound by the carrier's contracts, tariffs, or bills of lading. This settlement signals a tightening of regulatory scrutiny around carrier billing practices and highlights a critical gap between contract terms and actual billing enforcement. S.

tariff definitions, refund affected parties, and cease the disputed practice going forward. For shippers and cargo interests, this ruling clarifies that detention charges can only be legally assessed against parties explicitly bound by contract—typically shippers, consignees, and beneficial cargo owners. This has immediate implications for how carriers structure their billing hierarchies and validate contracting authority before assessing fees.

Beyond Maersk, this enforcement action establishes a precedent that carriers risk significant financial exposure if billing practices outpace contractual clarity. Supply chain teams should expect stricter audits of detention fee assessments across the industry and should verify that all third-party billing arrangements are explicitly documented in service contracts or tariffs. The case underscores the operational and legal importance of aligning maritime commerce practices with regulatory expectations.

#ocean-freight-regulation

#third-party-billing

#carrier-accountability

Frequently Asked Questions

What This Means for Your Supply Chain

Simulation Suggestion

this month

What if detention billing clarity reduces disputes by 30% and operational costs drop across the carrier network?

Simulate a scenario where tighter billing practices and clearer tariff definitions reduce disputed detention charges industry-wide by 30% over the next 12 months. Model the impact on carrier operational costs, shipper cash flow, and dispute resolution timelines. Assume improved billing transparency leads to faster invoice resolution and reduced customer service overhead.

Run this scenario

Simulation Suggestion

this week

What if carriers tighten third-party billing authorization and reduce eligible billing parties by 20%?

Model a supply chain scenario where carriers enforce stricter third-party billing rules, resulting in a 20% reduction in billable parties per shipment. Simulate the impact on shipper liability exposure, cash flow timing, and dispute frequency. Assume that explicit contract requirements slow billing processes initially but reduce legal risk long-term.

Run this scenario

Get the daily supply chain briefing

Top stories, Pulse score, and disruption alerts. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

The signal

Frequently Asked Questions

What This Means for Your Supply Chain

Related Articles