Damages proceedings concerning the so-called truck cartel: Oppenhoff represents TIP Trailer Services Germany GmbH

For several years now, several antitrust damages proceedings have been pending before the Regional Court (Landgericht, LG) of Munich I against the so-called truck cartel. For purposes of jointly gathering evidence, 36 proceedings were combined at the end of November; the total amount of damages asserted exceeds €500 million. A five-day marathon of joint hearings with expert testimonies was scheduled at the Wappenhalle in Munich to determine the damages. Dr. Vanessa Pickenpack and Dr. Daniel Dohrn represent one of Europe's largest truck rental companies, TIP Trailer Services Germany GmbH. It, too, has filed a lawsuit claiming antitrust damages amounting to millions. Meanwhile, the next major antitrust case against the world's six largest tyre manufacturers, the “tyre cartel,” is already in the starting blocks.

The Munich I Regional Court (LG) is handling one of the largest antitrust damages cases in German judicial history. In at least 36 parallel proceedings, truck buyers are demanding damages from participants in the so-called truck cartel due to cartel price surcharges. From 24-28 November 2025, a joint hearing of evidence took place with approximately 130 participants. In order to accommodate everyone, the court had specially rented the Wappenhalle in Munich Riem. Oppenhoff partners Dr. Vanessa Pickenpack and Dr. Daniel Dohrn are representing TIP Trailer Services Germany GmbH in one of the proceedings being brought against the truck cartel. They are assisted by competition economists Prof. Ralf Dewenter and Prof. Gordon Klein from eDEAS economics GmbH. These proceedings alone involve around 1,000 trucks and damages in the millions. Another antitrust damages lawsuit in which Oppenhoff represents TIP Trailer Services Germany GmbH is pending before the Regional Court of Hanover. This case involves damages concerning around 12,000 trucks and in a high double-digit million-euro amount.

The truck cartel

In July 2016 and September 2017, the EU Commission issued fines against MAN, Volvo/Renault, Daimler (now Daimler Truck), Iveco, DAF and Scania on grounds of a violation of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement. The violation was based on their agreement of prices and gross list price increases for medium and heavy trucks, as well as on the scheduling and passing on of the costs for introducing emission technologies for these vehicles in accordance with the EURO 3 to EURO 6 emission standards.

For this violation, which encompassed the entire European Economic Area and lasted from 17 January 1997 until 18 January 2011, the Commission imposed record fines totalling €3.8 billion on the truck manufacturers.

However, possible damage claims brought by truck buyers will have to be decided by the civil courts, including the Regional Court of Munich I.

Judicial review and hearing of evidence before the Munich I Regional Court

In November 2019, the 37th Civil Chamber of the Munich I Regional Court had already commissioned two competition economists to clarify in an expert opinion whether or not the antitrust violations discovered on the German truck market led to higher prices and, if so, how high the price premium was.

The experts had submitted two written opinions in which they determined the existence and amount of a cartel price premium by means of regression analysis (a statistical analysis method). During the week-long hearing of evidence, the experts were heard and confronted with the parties' objections. Ultimately, the experts stood by their assessment that the truck cartel had led to a price surcharge for all manufacturers and thus to damages for consumers. However, the court still has to estimate the specific amount of the price surcharge and the actual damage.

Lengthy proceedings ahead

Legislation and case law have a tendency to favour plaintiffs. In recent years, there have been numerous judgements in cartel damages proceedings. The Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof, BGH) alone has now issued six judgements on the truck cartel. Most recently, it once again strengthened the position of aggrieved companies vis-à-vis the cartel members and continued its plaintiff-friendly case law (BGH, judgement of 8 April 2025, docket no. KZR 71/32, Truck Cartel VI).

Nevertheless, antitrust damages proceedings are complex. The first step is to clarify whether and to what extent the cartel agreements have caused damage. The second step is to determine the so-called pass-on. This involves clarifying whether the injured company passed on part of the damage suffered to the downstream market stage through its own pricing, thereby minimising the damage - in the case of the truck cartel, for example, through the lease of the trucks in question.

Tyre cartel involving Continental, Michelin, Pirelli, Nokian, Bridgestone, and Goodyear

While proceedings surrounding the truck cartel are still in full swing, the next big case is already on the horizon. Since January 2024, the EU Commission has been investigating six of the largest tyre manufacturers - Continental, Michelin, Pirelli, Nokian, Bridgestone, and Goodyear - on suspicion of coordinated price fixing. The investigations cover almost all relevant tyre segments, in particular truck, car, van, tractor, and bus tyres, but also motorcycle and even bicycle tyres.

If the allegations are confirmed, this cartel complex will almost certainly also lead to a great many damage claims. Customers of the tyre manufacturers under investigation are well advised to already start collecting and securing relevant documents, such as invoices, orders and correspondence from the last 10 to 20 years. A solid documentation of purchases affected by the cartel is essential for a robust damage claim. The statute of limitation regarding claims, however, is not something that needs to be worried about yet, as the limitation periods are suspended while the antitrust authorities' investigations are ongoing.

We are closely monitoring developments and can support injured parties at an early stage in effectively securing and asserting their claims in these new antitrust proceedings.

Back to list