Dow’s €1.1 billion claim puts Europe’s ethylene cartel dispute back in focus

Europe’s long-running ethylene cartel dispute has returned to the spotlight after Dow Europe filed a €1.1 billion damages claim against four companies accused of manipulating Europe’s ethylene benchmark price. The lawsuit is the latest in a series of civil actions stemming from the European Commission’s 2020 decision that found Clariant, Celanese, Orbia and Westlake had coordinated their ethylene purchasing strategies between 2011 and 2017 to influence the Monthly Contract Price (MCP).

Although the Commission fined the companies a combined €260 million in 2020, the ruling did not determine whether ethylene suppliers suffered financial losses. That question has since become the focus of private litigation, with producers arguing that the alleged manipulation of the MCP depressed ethylene prices and reduced their revenues over several years. Earlier this year, Brazilian producer Braskem also joined the growing list of claimants after filing an €812 million damages claim, signalling that the dispute continues to widen.

With Dow’s latest filing, attention is shifting from the existence of the cartel—which has already been established by regulators—to the size of the damages. National courts must now determine whether suppliers incurred measurable losses and, if so, how much compensation the defendants may ultimately have to pay.



Why the case was different

Unlike conventional antitrust cases, where competing sellers collude to increase prices, the European Commission concluded that this was a purchasing cartel. According to its July 2020 decision, Clariant, Celanese, Orbia and Westlake coordinated their purchasing behaviour in the European ethylene market between late 2011 and early 2017 in an effort to influence the Monthly Contract Price (MCP), Europe’s benchmark price for contract ethylene.

Because the MCP serves as the pricing basis for a large share of long-term ethylene supply contracts across Europe, producers argue that any coordinated effort to suppress the benchmark could have reduced revenues across millions of tonnes of sales over several years. While the Commission established the infringement and imposed fines on the companies involved, the economic impact of the alleged conduct remains the central issue now being examined by civil courts.

Why producers are seeking billions

For ethylene producers, the Commission’s decision resolved only the regulatory aspect of the case. It did not determine whether suppliers suffered financial losses or quantify any damages resulting from the alleged manipulation of the MCP, which serves as the benchmark for a significant portion of long-term ethylene contracts in Europe.

That issue has since become the focus of civil litigation. Producers argue that even relatively small downward movements in the MCP could have reduced revenues across millions of tonnes of contract sales over several years, resulting in substantial cumulative losses.

Litigation continues to grow

Since the Commission’s decision, several major producers have filed damages claims in courts across Germany and the Netherlands, including Shell, BASF, LyondellBasell, TotalEnergies, OMV, BP, ExxonMobil and MOL Group.

Braskem became one of the latest companies to join the litigation earlier this year, filing an €812 million claim while arguing that the cartel’s effects extended beyond the Commission’s infringement period and continued to affect its ethylene sales through 2019.

Dow’s latest €1.1 billion claim further expands the legal dispute. Clariant confirmed receiving the lawsuit and said it would vigorously contest the allegations, maintaining that economic evidence shows the conduct had no measurable impact on the market.

Attention shifts from fines to damages

With multiple civil proceedings still underway, the focus of the dispute has shifted from regulatory enforcement to the economic consequences of the cartel.

Rather than revisiting whether the infringement occurred, courts are now expected to examine whether the alleged manipulation of the MCP translated into actual losses for ethylene suppliers and, ultimately, how much the defendants may be required to pay. As new claims continue to emerge years after the Commission’s decision, the case remains one of the most significant and closely watched antitrust disputes in the European petrochemical industry.