New Developments in the Ethylene Antitrust Case: Shell Lawsuit Defeated; Clariant and Three Other Companies Still Face Massive Liability in Multiple Countries

On July 29, 2026, the Amsterdam District Court issued a ruling in the ethylene procurement antitrust civil lawsuit that has attracted significant attention from the chemical industry, comprehensively dismissing the damages claims filed by Shell against Clariant and three other companies, while simultaneously rejecting the application for a declaratory judgment regarding liability confirmation submitted by the Ethylene Claims Foundation.

This case originated from the antitrust penalty decision made by the European Commission in 2020.

At that time, the EU determined that Clariant, Orbia, Celanese, and Versalis (a subsidiary of Eni) had engaged in collusion to suppress ethylene procurement prices, violating EU antitrust regulations, and imposed a total fine of 260 million euros. Of this, Celanese was fined approximately 159 million euros, Versalis about 63.2 million euros, Orbia about 22.3 million euros, and Clariant about 15.5 million euros. Although Westlake participated in the relevant procurement alliance, it received immunity from penalties for proactively disclosing related activities to regulatory authorities.

Based on this, Shell initiated a civil lawsuit, accusing the aforementioned four companies of antitrust infringing acts in the ethylene procurement process and seeking corresponding damages.

After hearing the case, the Amsterdam District Court found that existing evidence could not confirm that the exchange of information between the purchasers involved caused actual harm to the market, nor did it alter core pricing indicators such as the Monthly Contract Price (MCP) of ethylene. The Court also dismissed the declaratory action filed by the Ethylene Claims Foundation seeking confirmation of the defendants' legal liability.

The four defendant companies, including Clariant, stated that the actions involved did not have a measurable actual impact on the market, and therefore would not cause the economic losses claimed by the plaintiff. This court judgment essentially determines that Shell failed to prove a causal relationship between its own losses and the defendants' actions.

Despite the favorable ruling in this Dutch lawsuit, the massive multinational civil litigation surrounding this ethylene antitrust incident has not concluded. Clariant and the other three companies still face accountability from multiple chemical giants in the Netherlands and Germany, with several cases involving huge amounts:

On July 16, 2026, Dow Europe filed a lawsuit with the Dortmund Court in Germany, claiming approximately 1.1 billion euros;

On July 16, 2025, LyondellBasell submitted a lawsuit to the Amsterdam Court in the Netherlands, claiming about 1.6 billion euros;

On May 26, 2025, OMV (Austrian oil and gas group) filed a lawsuit with the Amsterdam Court in the Netherlands, claiming about 1 billion euros;

On May 9, 2025, Dow Europe previously filed a lawsuit with the Munich Court in Germany, claiming 767 million euros;

On February 25, 2025, TotalEnergies filed a lawsuit with the Amsterdam Court in the Netherlands, claiming approximately 625 million euros;

On January 9, 2025, BASF filed a lawsuit with the Munich Court in Germany, claiming 1.4 billion euros.

Industry insiders stated that ethylene is a basic raw material in the petrochemical industry chain. The core disputes in this series of连环 lawsuits focus on: whether the collusion determined by regulatory authorities actually caused real disturbances to ethylene market prices, and how to define the civil losses derived therefrom.

The ruling in the Shell case provides a judicial line of reasoning, but the subsequent direction of the remaining cross-border lawsuits will continue to affect the competitive landscape of the European petrochemical industry.