Truck cartel: Munich court assesses damages for MAN and Daimler – what does this mean for the transport industry?

In October 2026, the Munich Regional Court issued two groundbreaking rulings that, for the first time, concretely and measurably quantified the damage caused by the European truck cartel. At the center of the case were two giant automotive companies – MAN and Daimler (today operating under the Mercedes-Benz Group) – and the consequences of the ruling will be felt by thousands of transport, logistics, and construction companies across Europe. For risk managers and fleet owners, this signal could fundamentally change the way antitrust claims are assessed as a corporate asset.

Origin of the dispute: several years of collusion on the European market

To understand the significance of the Munich rulings, we must go back to the European Commission's decision from 2016-2017. The EU regulator proved that for nearly fourteen years – from 1997 to 2011 – Europe's largest truck manufacturers engaged in coordinated anti-competitive activities. The participants in the illegal agreement included MAN, Volvo/Renault, Daimler, Iveco, DAF, and Scania. The essence of the collusion consisted primarily of mutually agreeing on gross list prices for medium- and heavy-duty vehicles within the European Economic Area – a market that underpins the entire European economy.

The European Commission imposed record fines on cartel participants. MAN was the only company to avoid financial sanctions, as it was the first to disclose its collusion under the leniency program. The Scania case, however, dragged on the longest – the final confirmation of the Commission's decision by the Court of Justice of the European Union only occurred in early 2024, symbolically concluding the administrative phase and paving the way for mass private compensation claims in national courts.

However, establishing the illegality of the cartel's actions by regulatory authorities is only half the battle. The injured buyers—carriers, leasing companies, fleet operators, and construction companies—still had to prove in civil proceedings that they had actually paid an inflated price and by how much they had been harmed. This part of the process has proven to be the most arduous, costly, and unpredictable over the years. Until now.

Groundbreaking Munich rulings: hard numbers for the first time

The Civil Chamber No. 37 of the Munich I Regional Court, which specializes in competition law, heard two cases (case no. 37 O 6594/17 and 37 O 2959/18) in which the plaintiffs were companies from the construction sector. These companies purchased a certain number of vehicles from MAN and Daimler between 1997 and 2009 and claimed compensation for the price difference they had overpaid as a result of the cartel.

The court accepted their claims and – which is an absolute novelty in the scale of antitrust case law in Germany – provided specific percentage values ​​of the price surplus that the buyers incurred as a result of the cartel:

• Daimler heavy vehicles: damage established at the level 3,7 percent of the net price
• Daimler medium-sized vehicles: damage at the level 4,2 percent of the net price
• MAN heavy vehicles: cartel margin estimated at 5 percent of the net price
• MAN medium-sized vehicles: overpricing at the level 1 percent of the net price

The only exception to the rule regarding the upholding of claims was a single vehicle purchased in 1997, for which the court found that the evidence of damage was insufficiently convincing. This is an important detail, suggesting that the early period of the cartel's operation may be more difficult to document than later years.

It's important to emphasize that these rulings are not yet final. Producers will likely file appeals, and the final decision may be different. Nevertheless, the very fact that the court of first instance, after seven years of proceedings, dared to make such precise calculations is unprecedented and changes the rules of the game for all market participants.

How did the court arrive at these numbers? The role of experts and regression analyses.

Determining the percentage by which a vehicle's price was inflated as a result of collusion between several manufacturers operating for over a decade is an exceptionally complex task from an analytical perspective. The court appointed two independent experts in competition economics, who have been working on analyzing the evidence since 2019. They employed advanced econometric regression models—statistical techniques that isolate the cartel's impact on prices, ignoring other market factors such as changes in raw material costs, inflation, or general industry conditions.

This methodology raised numerous objections from both manufacturers. Detailed objections were discussed during hearings in late 2025. Ultimately, the court rejected all these objections and deemed the model proposed by the experts credible and appropriate for use in this case. This methodological decision has enormous practical implications – if a similar approach is accepted by higher courts or adopted by other adjudicating panels in Germany and Europe, it will standardize the method of calculating damages across the entire spectrum of cartel proceedings.

It's worth noting that the approach to the methodology for valuing antitrust damages varies across EU countries. The Munich rulings could become a model for legal counsel in Warsaw, Madrid, Amsterdam, and Vienna.

Scale of the problem – how many companies could have been affected?

The cartel covered vehicle sales for 14 years throughout the EEA. During this time, tens of millions of trucks were purchased in Europe. It is estimated that several hundred thousand entities may be directly affected – from sole proprietorships with a few trucks in Poland or Romania, through medium-sized forwarding companies with fleets of several dozen vehicles, to large logistics operators in Germany, France, and the Netherlands with thousands of vehicles.

In Poland itself, purchasing trucks from brands covered by the cartel has been an integral part of the TSL industry for years. Polish carriers currently constitute one of the largest concentrations of potential plaintiffs in Europe. Many Polish companies have already filed lawsuits or assigned claims to specialized entities, but until now, the lack of precise court guidelines has hindered the reliable valuation of these receivables.

What do the judgments mean for transport and logistics companies?

From the perspective of a transport company owner or fleet manager, the Munich rulings have several important practical implications:

1. Real prospect of recovering funds

For a tractor-trailer purchase worth, say, €120,000 net, even the lower limit of the overpayment (1%) translates to €1,200 per vehicle. At the upper limit (5%), it's €6,000. For a company that has regularly purchased new vehicles over the years, adding up these amounts can add up to a significant sum – enough to finance a new vehicle, repay lease liabilities, or reinvest in infrastructure.

2. Claims as a balance sheet asset

For credit risk analysts and financing institutions in the TSL industry, these rulings open up a new perspective on company valuation. Previously, cartel claims were considered highly uncertain – difficult to value, and the prospect of recovery was vague. Now that the court has established specific interest rate ranges, these claims are becoming more predictable assets. Banks, lessors, and insurers can begin to factor them into their analyses of contractors' financial capacity.

3. Assignment of receivables as an alternative to a long process

Not every transport company has the legal and financial resources to pursue legal proceedings against powerful automotive companies for years to come. For such entities, an attractive option is the assignment of receivables – selling the right to compensation to a specialized fund or entity that collects claims. Until now, the valuation of such transactions has been fraught with significant uncertainty. The Munich rulings significantly reduce this uncertainty for the buyer, which may translate into more favorable assignment terms for the transport companies themselves.

4. The impetus for mass claims

The rulings can be expected to have a cascading effect. Those who have previously postponed taking legal action – out of fear of costs, lengthy proceedings, or uncertainty about the outcome – will now have a concrete argument to take action. Competition lawyers are likely actively seeking new clients, and litigation funds are ready to support the financing of new lawsuits.

Implications for producers and assessment of their financial risk

On the other side of the barricade stand MAN and Daimler (Mercedes-Benz Group), and indirectly, the other cartel members: Volvo/Renault, Iveco, DAF, and Scania. For all of these entities, the Munich court's ruling is a wake-up call in several respects:

Increase in financial reserves

Setting specific percentage rates necessitates a revision of existing provisions for potential cartel compensation liabilities. Previous provisions could have been calculated using more optimistic assumptions. Updating these calculations with new data could result in a significant reduction in equity, which in turn would impact the financial indicators these companies report to investors and rating analysts.

Pressure for out-of-court settlements

Continuing thousands of individual court proceedings in multiple countries simultaneously is extremely costly for producers, not only financially but also organizationally and reputationally. The Munich rulings, which establish specific damage ranges, may paradoxically facilitate the conclusion of mass out-of-court settlements – both parties now have a better reference point for negotiations. Producers may be willing to offer a quick settlement at a level slightly below the court-mandated rates, offering certainty and speed of payment in return. For transport companies struggling with liquidity issues, such an offer may be difficult to refuse.

Impact on dividend and investment strategies

Materialization of claims on a mass scale could significantly burden the cash flow of large producers, which would translate into their dividend opportunities and the pace of investment in new technologies – primarily in electromobility and hydrogen drives, which are currently a key battleground in the truck market.

The prospects for the litigation financing market and the claims assignment market

A separate, yet extremely significant, side effect of the judgments is their impact on the litigation finance and antitrust claims assignment market. The European litigation funding market is growing rapidly, with cartel cases constituting one of its main pillars. However, until now, the valuation of claims arising from the truck cartel has been fraught with significant uncertainty – there has been a lack of court precedents that would allow for a reliable estimate of the likely outcome of the case.

The Munich rulings are changing this landscape. Investment funds and specialized law firms financing litigation can now model expected returns on investments in specific claim portfolios with greater certainty. This, in turn, should translate into:

• Higher valuations of claims portfolios offered to sellers (transport companies)
• A greater number of assignment transactions, especially among smaller entities
• Increased activity of funds purchasing claims in Poland, Romania, Bulgaria and other countries with an extensive road transport sector
• Consolidation of claims into large portfolios that will be processed jointly in selected jurisdictions

Poland, as the country with the largest truck fleet in Central and Eastern Europe, may become one of the key markets where this effect will be particularly pronounced.

Summary – Business Risk Assessment from the EURODEBT.eu Perspective

The rulings of the Munich Regional Court I in October 2026 are one of the most important market signals for the transport and logistics industry in recent years. The setting of specific percentage rates for price overcharges – ranging from 1 to 5 percent of the net price, depending on the make and category of the vehicle – marks a turning point in the long-running process of settling the European truck cartel.

For risk managers assessing TSL sector counterparties, the conclusions are as follows:

• Transport companies with documented cartel claims may show an improvement in their financial profile in the coming months – both through direct compensation proceeds and through better valuation of these assets by financial institutions.
• Truck manufacturers Those affected by the judgments are faced with the need to review their liability reserves, which may affect their short-term financial indicators and refinancing policies.
• The debt assignment market and litigation finance will probably enter an acceleration phase, which means new opportunities, but also new risks for entities engaging in the trading of claims without sufficient verification of their basis.
• Appeal proceedings may modify the established rates – it is worth monitoring the results of subsequent instances before making strategic decisions based on these judgments.

A key indicator to watch in the coming quarters will be litigation activity in countries like Poland, Germany, the Netherlands, and Spain—these are where the largest number of potential plaintiffs are concentrated. Each subsequent ruling confirming or challenging the Munich calculations will have a direct impact on the financial health of hundreds of thousands of entities in the European supply chain.