46 U.S.C. § 41102

General prohibitions

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 46 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a)Obtaining Transportation at Less Than Applicable Rates.—A person may not knowingly and willfully, directly or indirectly, by means of false billing, false classification, false weighing, false report of weight, false measurement, or any other unjust or unfair device or means, obtain or attempt to obtain ocean transportation for property at less than the rates or charges that would otherwise apply.(b)Operating Contrary to Agreement.—A person may not operate under an agreement required to be filed under section 40302 or 40305 of this title if—(1) the agreement has not become effective under section 40304 of this title or has been rejected, disapproved, or canceled; or(2) the operation is not in accordance with the terms of the agreement or any modifications to the agreement made by the Federal Maritime Commission.(c)Practices in Handling Property.—A common carrier, marine terminal operator, or ocean transportation intermediary may not fail to establish, observe, and enforce just and reasonable regulations and practices relating to or connected with receiving, handling, storing, or delivering property.(d)Retaliation and Other Discriminatory Actions.—A common carrier, marine terminal operator, or ocean transportation intermediary, acting alone or in conjunction with any other person, directly or indirectly, may not—(1) retaliate against a shipper, an agent of a shipper, an ocean transportation intermediary, or a motor carrier by refusing, or threatening to refuse, an otherwise-available cargo space accommodation; or(2) resort to any other unfair or unjustly discriminatory action for—(A) the reason that a shipper, an agent of a shipper, an ocean transportation intermediary, or motor carrier has—(i) patronized another carrier; or(ii) filed a complaint against the common carrier, marine terminal operator, or ocean transportation intermediary; or(B) any other reason.(Pub. L. 109–304, § 7, Oct. 6, 2006, 120 Stat. 1540; Pub. L. 117–146, § 5, June 16, 2022, 136 Stat. 1273.)

Historical and Revision Notes
Revised Section	Source (U.S. Code)	Source (Statutes at Large)
41102(a)	46 App.:1709(a)(1).	Pub. L. 98–237, § 10(a), Mar. 20, 1984, 98 Stat. 77.
41102(b)	46 App.:1709(a)(2), (3).
41102(c)	46 App.:1709(d)(1).	Pub. L. 98–237, § 10(d)(1), Mar. 20, 1984, 98 Stat. 77; Pub. L. 105–258, title I, § 109(c)(2), Oct. 14, 1998, 112 Stat. 1909.

Editorial NotesAmendments

2022—Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 117–146 added subsec. (d).

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesRulemaking on Demurrage or Detention

Pub. L. 117–146, § 7(b), June 16, 2022, 136 Stat. 1275, provided that:“(1)In general.—Not later than 45 days after the date of enactment of this Act [June 16, 2022], the Federal Maritime Commission shall initiate a rulemaking further defining prohibited practices by common carriers, marine terminal operators, shippers, and ocean transportation intermediaries under section 41102(c) of title 46, United States Code, regarding the assessment of demurrage or detention charges. The Federal Maritime Commission shall issue a final rule defining such practices not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act.“(2)Contents.—The rule under paragraph (1) shall only seek to further clarify reasonable rules and practices related to the assessment of detention and demurrage charges to address the issues identified in the final rule published on May 18, 2020, entitled ‘Interpretive Rule on Demurrage and Detention Under the Shipping Act’ (or successor rule), including a determination of which parties may be appropriately billed for any demurrage, detention, or other similar per container charges.”

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 22 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 2007–2026 · leading case: In Re Vehicle Carrier Services Antitrust Litigation

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

In Re Vehicle Carrier Services Antitrust Litigation (2017) ca3 “46 U.S.C. § 41102 (b). If an agreement has not been filed, it cannot become effective and thus operating under such an unfiled agreement is prohibited.”

Puerto Rico Ports Authority v. Federal Maritime Commission (2008) cadc · cites it 2× “The marine terminal operators alleged that PRPA's marine terminal leasing practices violated the federal Shipping Act of 1984, 46 U.S.C. §§ 41102 (c), 41104, 41106. They contended that PRPA: (1) failed to establish reasonable receiving, handling, storing, or delivering…”

Maryland Port Administration v. Premier Automotive Services, Inc. (In Re Premier Automotive Services, Inc.) (2007) ca4 “§ 1709(d)(1), (3), (4) (now codified at 46 U.S.C. §§ 41102 (c), 41106(2)-(3)). The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition on sovereign immunity grounds.”

Evergreen Shipping Agency (America) Corp. v. FMC (2024) cadc · cites it 2× “” 46 U.S.C. § 41102 (c). One regulated practice is the assessment of detention charges — fees charged by an ocean carrier for the use of a shipping container outside a marine ter- minal.”

Adenariwo v. Federal Maritime Commission (2015) cadc · cites it 2× “Adenariwo filed with the Commission two identical complaints against Zim and BDP, alleging that they had engaged in unreasonable practices when handling the equipment, in violation of Section 10(d)(1) of the Shipping Act of 1984, 46 U.S.C. § 41102 (c). The Commission dismissed…”

City of Oakland Ex Rel. Board of Port Commissioners v. Federal Maritime Commission (2013) cadc “See 46 U.S.C. §§ 41102 (c), 41106(2)-(3) (requiring marine terminal operators to follow “just *227 and reasonable” regulations and practices, and prohibiting them from discriminating against or “unreasonably” refusing to deal with a party).”

Western Holding Group, Inc. v. Mayagüez Port Commission (2009) prd · cites it 4× “Plaintiffs, allegedly common carriers within the meaning of the Shipping Act of 1984, bring this complaint against the defendants, who are allegedly marine terminal operators, for violations of the Shipping Act of 1984, 46 U.S.C. § 41102 (c), violations which include…”

Federal Maritime Com'n v. City of Los Angeles, California (2009) dcd “8 46 U.S.C. § 41102 (b)(l)-(2). In addition, the Shipping Act provides a “general standard” in Section 6(g) under which the FMC may seek to enjoin anticompetitive conduct by MTOs who are parties to an agreement within the FMC’s jurisdiction.”

Cooper/T. Smith Stevedoring Co. v. State (2012) gactapp “While the Act contains no explicit preemptive language, CTS asserts that the following provisions establish both field and conflict preemption: 46 USC § 41102 (c) (“Acommon carrier, marine terminal operator, or ocean transportation intermediary may not fail to establish,…”

Crocus Investments, LLC v. FMC (2022) cadc · cites it 2× “(“Marine Transport”) under 46 U.S.C. § 41102 (c). Crocus argues that the Commission erred by retroactively applying a new interpretation of Section 41102(c) to reject its claim.”

MAERSK LINE v. TJM INTERNATIONAL LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY (2019) njd · cites it 2× “Plaintiff asserts a claim under a federal statute, the Shipping Act, 46 U.S.C. § 41102 . Subject matter jurisdiction also lies in Admiralty.”

Mediterranean Shipping Company (USA) Inc. v. Huatai USA LLC (2020) nysd · cites it 2× “Though not cited in the complaint or discussed in Plaintiff's brief, it is possible that Plaintiff attempts to bring this claim under the Shipping Act, 46 U.S.C. § 41102 (a). That statute states: A person may not knowingly and willfully, directly or indirectly, by means of false…”

Show all 22 citing cases →

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.