The proflux of measures introduced, of which many applied, as many unenforced and many revoked, from the American government administration since the 20th January to the White House again Donald Trump has struck almost all the sectors of the American and world economy, including that of shipping. It has not been exception the segment of the containerized marine transport, eliciting the reactions of the World Shipping Council (WSC), the main representative international association of the shipping companies that operate in this field of activity, that in the last months has repeatedly manifested opposition for the measures recently adopted by the American federal government(of 27 March, 11and 22April and 19 May 2025).

But if some measures established by the White House directly affect the interests of the companies of the WSC, the most shocking disposition for the activities of these companies and for the same subsistence of the World Shipping Council as organization responsible for negotiating with the institutional counterparties in name and on behalf of the representatives could come from the result of an investigation announced Thursday from the Federal Maritime Commission (FMC), the independent federal agency that has the task to regulate the system of the international shipping

Sola was appointed president of the FMC by Donald Trump on November 15, 2018 and Trump again appointed as president of the agency on January 20. On Tuesday, Sola announced that today it would be the last day of her mandate, suggesting that her new appointment to the FMC presidency had already a limited duration. It is not to be excluded, however, that Sola is encapsulated in one of the many rethinkings occurred in the closed of the Oval Studio.

The investigation initiated by the FMC could remove the sleep at the WSC that, until now, has not reacted to the announcement of the Federal Maritime Commission to investigate the agreement n. 201349 with the FMC that on October 1, 2020 the WSC has deposited with the aim to include some issues addressed by the association that would enter into the jurisdiction of the FMC. Thursday the federal agency has announced of having reason to believe that the agreement, instead, does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Federal Maritime Commission and has communicated the decision to start an investigation on the agreement with the WSC to determine if violi the US Shipping Act.

This could have the outcome of ending the antitrust exemption for the WSC companies from the US competition laws for cooperation agreements in the field of line shipping. "In a first phase - we read in the order of FMC - we order WSC to demonstrate the reasons for which the Commission has jurisdiction over the agreement and should not cancel it as outside the jurisdiction of the agency pursuant to Article 40301(a)". In particular, according to the FMC, "the WSC agreement raises serious concerns as it is not a "cooperative work agreement" within the scope of Article 40301(a) of the Shipping Act, and therefore outside the jurisdiction of the Commission on the agreements deposited. Although the formulation of Article 40301(a) is apparently broad - specific FMC communication - can not be to the point to cover any kind of cooperation between ocean common carriers".

The Federal Maritime Commission puts into question, above all, the fact that the agreement is stipulated by a category association that does not directly exercise the activities of the companies represented. "Firstly - the communication explains - the agreement does not seem to meet the first requirement of Article 40301(a), as parts of the agreement do not act in their regulated function under the agreement itself. WSC is a category association composed of ocean common carriers and, even, the agreement describes the activities of a category association. Reaching a non-binding agreement on positions relating to maritime transport laws is not simply equivalent to providing maritime transport services. In fact, the terms of the agreement expressly prohibit the parties to the agreement also only to discuss or agree the actual operations of the marine transport services of the parties of the agreement". "In other words - specific the order of FMC - an entity engaged exclusively in the activities of discussion and lobbying under the agreement could not qualify as " ocean common carrier" according to the Shipping Act, since it does not carry out any of the functions that define an ocean common carrier. It does not offer marine transport, it does not assume the responsibility of the cargo nor provides or organizes the marine transport in the trade between the United States and abroad".

"Secondly - the communication continues - the "cooperation" between ocean common carriers authorized by the agreement does not seem to fall into the type of conduct disciplined by the Shipping Act, neither from the concession of antitrust immunity from the law. As established by the Supreme Court in the case of Seatrain, a "cooperative work agreement" was intended specifically as a generic term closely related to other categories of agreements explicitly focusing on the operations provided for by the law of 1916, which are cited in Article 40301(a)". "Even in this case, the agreement does not concern and is absolutely distinct from the actual operations of common carriers associated with the WSC. Moreover, the ambiguity regarding the fact that conduct in an agreement is actually within the jurisdiction of the Commission - and therefore free from antitrust laws - must be resolved in a restrictive manner. The Congress has granted an antitrust exemption limited to the collaboration between ocean common carriers competitors, necessary to preserve competition and prevent harmful concentrations in the field of marine transport".

"A category association not involved in the provision of maritime transport services - the FMC concludes - does not seem to be involved in the type of conduct that Congress intended to safeguard from the control of antitrust authorities and private actors. The importance of the consolidated jurisprudence of the Supreme Court and of the Commission's regulations and precedents suggest that the agreement does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Commission under Article 40301(a)".

The Federal Maritime Commission has established that the deposit of opinions made by Kurdish friends should take place by 9 September and that the replication of the parties to the agreement to any of these opinions should be deposited by the next 30 September.