A PYMNTS Company

Antitrust Case Against Freight Rail Giants Moves to Appeals Court After Dismissal

By  |  July 28, 2025

A federal judge has delivered a major legal victory to the nation’s largest freight railroads, ruling in their favor in a long-standing antitrust case centered on fuel surcharges. According to a statement issued by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, summary judgment was granted to BNSF Railway, CSX Transportation, Norfolk Southern (NS), and Union Pacific, effectively ending claims brought by shippers who alleged the railroads colluded to fix prices in violation of federal antitrust law.

    Get the Full Story

    Complete the form to unlock this article and enjoy unlimited free access to all PYMNTS content — no additional logins required.

    yesSubscribe to our daily newsletter, PYMNTS Today.

    By completing this form, you agree to receive marketing communications from PYMNTS and to the sharing of your information with our sponsor, if applicable, in accordance with our Privacy Policy and Terms and Conditions.

    The plaintiffs had accused the four rail carriers of coordinating the implementation of fuel surcharges between 2003 and 2008, arguing that the railroads worked together to inflate costs and extract excessive payments. However, Senior Judge Beryl A. Howell concluded that the evidence did not support such allegations of conspiracy. Per the court’s ruling, even if the railroads’ actions were “consciously parallel” in nature, the plaintiffs failed to present proof of unlawful coordination.

    The decision was made through summary judgment, a legal mechanism that allows the court to resolve a case without a trial when there are no material facts in dispute. Judge Howell’s order came after reviewing a voluminous record of nearly 30,000 pages of evidence.

    According to a statement from Norfolk Southern, the ruling supports its position that the use of fuel surcharges was “a unilateral and competitive approach” to managing rising fuel costs. The surcharges were initially introduced around 1999 in response to escalating diesel prices and reportedly generated more than $1 billion in certain quarters.

    We’d love to be your preferred source for news.

    Please add us to your preferred sources list so our news, data and interviews show up in your feed. Thanks!

    Add as Preferred Source

    Read more: Off the Rails or on Track? Implications of Transnet’s 15-Year Exemption

    Despite the ruling, the legal battle is not yet over. Multiple plaintiffs have already filed notices of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Oral arguments before a three-judge panel are expected in 2026, as the case approaches its nineteenth year. Shippers intend to ask the appellate court to send the lawsuits back to the district level for individual trials.

    Per a statement from a shipper-side attorney, “This case is far from over,” underscoring the high financial stakes. If the railroads are ultimately found liable, damages could range from $1 billion to several billion dollars, depending on future rulings and interpretations.

    Originally, more than 300 separate cases were filed across various jurisdictions after the denial of class action certification by an appellate court in 2019. These individual lawsuits were later consolidated before Judge Howell.

    At the core of the shippers’ complaint is the claim that the railroads applied nearly identical fuel surcharge formulas, enabling them to recover more than 100% of actual fuel costs from customers. Consultancy firm Snavely King previously estimated that, over a four-year period ending in early 2007, railroads collected approximately $6 billion beyond actual fuel-price increases through these surcharges.

    With locomotive diesel among the industry’s largest expenses—railroads burn through an estimated four billion gallons annually—fuel surcharges have long been a point of contention. A 2011 Forbes report noted that a significant portion of Norfolk Southern’s 2005 revenue growth came from such surcharges.

    Source: Rail Wayage