- The Regional Court of Munich I has issued two judgments concerning trucks purchased while the manufacturers’ cartel was operating.
- For Daimler heavy trucks, the estimated overcharge was 3.7% of the net price, while the figure for medium trucks was 4.2%.
- For heavy MAN trucks, the court applied a 5% overcharge estimate, compared with 1% for medium vehicles.
- A claim concerning a truck purchased in 1997 was dismissed because the court found that cartel-related damage had not been shown to be sufficiently likely.
- The calculations relied on regression analyses prepared by two economists specialising in competition matters.
- Neither judgment is final.
- For comparison, a Milan court applied an 8% overcharge estimate to some vehicles in 2026, while earlier Spanish rulings produced even higher figures in certain cases.
The rulings concern lawsuits brought by two construction companies that bought trucks, including vehicles made by MAN and Daimler, between 1997 and 2009.
The Regional Court of Munich I did not apply a single rate to every vehicle. The estimated overcharge varied by both manufacturer and truck category.
| Manufacturer | Truck category | Estimated overcharge |
|---|---|---|
| MAN | Heavy | 5% of the net price |
| MAN | Medium | 1% of the net price |
| Daimler | Heavy | 3.7% of the net price |
| Daimler | Medium | 4.2% of the net price |
The court did not accept every claim. In the case of a truck purchased in 1997, it found that cartel-related damage had not been shown to be sufficiently likely.
Neither of the judgments, both dated 21 October 2026, is final.
Experts and regression analysis underpin the rulings
One of the most difficult issues in truck-cartel litigation is not proving that a collusive arrangement existed, but determining whether it affected the price actually paid for a particular vehicle and, if so, by how much. The manufacturers’ participation was established by European Commission decisions issued in 2016 and 2017. Those decisions do not automatically determine the loss suffered by every individual buyer.
The Regional Court of Munich I based its conclusions primarily on opinions from two economists specialising in competition matters. At the court’s request, they had examined the cartel’s impact on transaction prices in a number of related proceedings since 2019.
The economists used regression analysis to separate the possible effect of the cartel from other factors influencing truck prices. The parties raised numerous objections to the expert reports and submitted analyses of their own. At the end of 2025, the court spent several days discussing the methodology and findings in detail with the parties.
Ultimately, the court concluded that the model used by its experts provided a suitable basis for estimating the loss in these particular cases.
Munich ruling offers a new benchmark
The new judgments are significant in the context of Germany’s long-running truck-cartel litigation. For years, a key challenge was moving from a finding that collusion may have affected the market to proving the specific loss suffered by an individual buyer.
In the latest cases, the court assigned percentage values to the estimated overcharge for specific vehicle categories. This does not establish a universal formula that can automatically be applied in other proceedings.
Germany’s litigation landscape remains extensive. One of the largest proceedings is the case involving Financialright Claims, which covers claims arising from tens of thousands of truck purchases, leases and financing arrangements.
In May 2026, Germany’s Federal Court of Justice allowed, in principle, such claims to be pursued through claims-collection companies. At the same time, it noted that very large proceedings may need to be divided into smaller parts if their scale makes a reliable examination too difficult.
How Munich compares with other countries
The figures applied in Germany are lower than those in some earlier decisions from other European countries. Even so, the rulings cannot be used to create a simple European ranking of truck-cartel damages.
The cases involve different claimants, manufacturers, purchase periods, vehicles and economic evidence.
| Jurisdiction / case | Estimated overcharge or compensation |
|---|---|
| Munich, 2026 | 1–5% |
| Milan, 2026 | 8%; 4% for some vehicles purchased after the cartel ended |
| Bordeaux, 2025 | More than €7,700 per eligible vehicle |
| Cáceres, 2020 | 16.35% |
| Pontevedra | Approximately 9% |
| Murcia | 20.7% in one specific case |
Italy: Milan sets damages at 8%
In January 2026, the Tribunale di Milano issued a ruling in a case brought by 14 Italian transport companies against Iveco, Scania, DAF and MAN. For 141 medium and heavy trucks purchased while the cartel was operating, the court set the overcharge at 8% of the purchase price.
A separate rate of 4% was applied to six vehicles bought after the cartel had formally ended, reflecting the possibility that distorted pricing continued to affect the market. As in Munich, an economic analysis prepared by a court-appointed expert played an important role.
France: more than €7,700 per vehicle
In October 2025, the Commercial Court in Bordeaux issued the first French ruling favourable to carriers in a private lawsuit involving the truck cartel. Daimler was ordered to pay more than €7,700 for each eligible vehicle. The law firm representing the carriers said at the time that its economic analysis indicated an overpayment of around 9%.
The figure cannot be compared directly with the percentages applied in Munich because the French case involved different evidence and transactions.
Spain: individual cases range from 5% to more than 20%
Some earlier Spanish cases produced even higher figures. In 2020, a court in Cáceres found that buyers had paid 16.35% more for their trucks than they would have paid without the cartel. In one case in Pontevedra, compensation amounted to approximately 9% of the purchase price, while a court in Murcia applied a 20.7% overcharge estimate in a specific case.
Not every Spanish ruling resulted in such a high figure. In one case in Valencia, the court set compensation at 5% of the purchase value.
How the truck cartel came to light
The litigation stems from European Commission decisions concerning collusion among truck manufacturers. The Commission found that, between 1997 and 2011, the largest manufacturers had coordinated, among other things, list prices for medium and heavy vehicles across the European Economic Area.
The proceedings involved MAN, Volvo/Renault, Daimler, Iveco, DAF and Scania. In 2016, the Commission fined five manufacturers approximately €2.93 billion. Scania was sanctioned separately in 2017 and received a fine of approximately €880 million.
Following those decisions, companies that had bought or leased trucks during the cartel period began seeking compensation from the manufacturers in courts across Europe.
What the Munich ruling means for carriers
The new judgments do not create an automatic right to compensation equal to 5% of the price of every truck. They concern specific vehicles, manufacturers and evidence, and neither ruling is final. They are nevertheless an important reference point because the Regional Court of Munich I has, for the first time, assigned concrete percentage values to the loss in individual cases.
European case law remains highly varied, ranging from a 1% estimate in the latest case involving medium MAN trucks to double-digit figures in some earlier Spanish proceedings. The Munich rulings show that the central issue in truck-cartel litigation is increasingly not just whether damage occurred, but how convincingly it can be calculated in each individual case.
