Daimler and MAN Ordered to Repay European Truck Customers

Daimler, MAN face reimbursement claims in European truck-cartel litigation

Daimler and MAN are facing major compensation claims from truck buyers and fleet operators who say they paid too much for vehicles because manufacturers coordinated prices and emissions-related costs across Europe.

The claims follow a European Commission investigation into a truck cartel that operated from 1997 through 2011. The investigation found that several of Europe’s largest truck manufacturers coordinated on gross list prices for medium- and heavy-duty trucks and on the timing and cost of introducing emissions technologies.

The Commission’s decisions in 2016 and 2017 resulted in total fines of about €3.8 billion, among the largest penalties imposed in European competition enforcement. The case is officially identified as Case AT.39824.

The manufacturers named in the broader proceedings include Daimler, DAF, Iveco, MAN, Volvo/Renault and Scania. Together, the companies represented roughly nine out of every 10 medium- and heavy-truck manufacturers in Europe during the period covered by the investigation, according to the European Commission.

For trucking companies, public authorities and other operators that purchased or leased trucks during those years, the cartel findings created the possibility of separate civil claims. Those follow-on cases seek to recover alleged overcharges that were not returned through the European Commission’s fines. Regulatory fines are paid to public authorities; compensation claims are brought by customers who say they suffered financial losses.

Lieff Cabraser’s Munich office is leading aggregate litigation involving claims against several of the manufacturers. One claimant, TransAtlantis, a Luxembourg joint venture between two U.S. investment funds, has bundled more than 11,000 claims from more than 450 assignors in nine European countries.

In the Munich proceedings, TransAtlantis is seeking more than €118 million in damages plus interest from Daimler and MAN. The total claimed, including interest, was described as approximately €193 million. TransAtlantis also has proceedings against the cartel manufacturers in the Netherlands.

The Munich litigation is part of a wider series of cases involving truck purchasers across Europe. Proceedings also concern Volvo Group, including Renault Trucks, as well as Scania and Iveco. Earlier settlements were reached with some manufacturers, including DAF in 2024. Claims worth approximately €70 million against Iveco were still pending in Munich, according to the information provided.

A separate development in the Netherlands addressed whether some claims had been filed too late. In a judgment dated April 15, 2026, the Amsterdam court rejected the manufacturers’ limitation defense. The court held that, consistent with European Union case law, the limitation period began on April 7, 2017, when the European Commission’s decision was published.

That ruling does not determine the amount of compensation owed to individual truck operators. Instead, it addresses whether the claims can proceed despite the manufacturers’ argument that the applicable deadline had expired. Issues such as the number of affected purchases, the amount of any overcharge and the connection between a particular purchase and the cartel may still be relevant in individual proceedings.

Scania’s position is procedurally different from that of the other manufacturers. Although Scania was found to have participated in the same cartel, it challenged the Commission’s decision before the European Union courts. The General Court upheld the decision in 2022, and the Court of Justice dismissed Scania’s appeal on Feb. 1, 2024.

The Court of Justice’s decision left in place a fine of €880.523 million against Scania. Because the decision became final later than the 2016 settlement decision involving other manufacturers, the timing of follow-on claims against Scania can differ under applicable civil-liability and limitation rules.

The Commission’s findings covered more than the simple coordination of truck prices. Investigators also concluded that the manufacturers coordinated the timing of new emissions technologies and passed related costs on to customers. That aspect is significant for operators because emissions-compliance systems are part of the purchase price and operating economics of modern trucks.

The fines imposed in the original case varied by manufacturer. Daimler’s penalty was listed at more than €1 billion, while Volvo was fined about €670.448 million, Iveco €494.606 million and DAF €752.679 million. MAN received immunity from a fine after reporting the cartel and cooperating with the investigation. Some penalties were reduced because manufacturers cooperated with the Commission.

The continuing civil litigation illustrates the difference between an antitrust enforcement action and customer compensation proceedings. The Commission established the cartel violation and imposed penalties, but truck buyers and fleet operators must pursue their own claims to seek recovery for alleged losses.

For professional carriers, the cases may affect companies that bought or leased qualifying trucks in Europe between 1997 and 2011, as well as entities that later acquired or assigned related claims. The litigation remains divided among multiple courts, manufacturers and procedural tracks, with some claims settled and others still being contested.