Appeals Court Upholds FMC Rules on Carrier Refusal-to-Deal, Export Policies

Why It Matters

The decision bolsters exporter protections and ensures carriers remain accountable for fair capacity allocation, shaping the competitive dynamics of U.S. maritime trade.

Key Takeaways

• FMC can subpoena carrier rate and policy data
• Court affirms broad FMC investigative authority
• Carriers must disclose export policy details
• Exporters gain stronger protection against space denial
• Potential for increased compliance costs for shippers

Pulse Analysis

The Ocean Shipping Reform Act of 2022 was enacted to curb anti‑competitive behavior in the liner shipping market, most notably the practice of carriers refusing vessel space to U.S. exporters without justification. By codifying a ‘refusal‑to‑deal’ prohibition, the law gives the Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) the power to investigate and intervene when carriers’ export policies appear discriminatory. This regulatory shift reflects growing concern that limited capacity and opaque pricing were eroding U.S. trade competitiveness, prompting lawmakers to grant the FMC broader oversight tools.

In a March 2026 decision, a three‑judge panel of the D.C. Court of Appeals rejected a petition from the World Shipping Council seeking to narrow the scope of the refusal‑to‑deal provision. The judges held that the FMC’s authority to collect information on carrier rates and export policies is “broad and reasonable,” emphasizing that the agency must be able to verify compliance with OSRA‑22. By upholding the commission’s investigative latitude, the court reinforced the legal foundation for future enforcement actions against carriers that limit space or manipulate pricing.

The ruling sends a clear signal to the maritime industry that non‑compliance will be met with robust scrutiny and potential penalties. Exporters can now rely on the FMC to probe discriminatory practices, which may improve access to container capacity and stabilize freight rates. At the same time, carriers face higher compliance costs as they must maintain detailed records and respond to information requests. Analysts expect the decision to encourage greater transparency in export‑policy disclosures and could spur additional rulemaking aimed at protecting U.S. supply chains.