Missing Witnesses, Missing Evidence
The tribunal expressed skepticism about the lack of concrete proof, noting that Stellantis’ claim was not a direct follow-on from the EU’s cartel decision. While it acknowledged that email exchanges and disclosed documents hinted at possible cartel activity, it ultimately found no conclusive evidence of overcharging.
Further weakening Stellantis’ case was Autoliv’s failure to produce witnesses who could clarify the extent of their cartel involvement. Yet, this absence did not sway the tribunal in Stellantis’ favor.
Did Stellantis Overplay Its Hand?
One of the tribunal’s most damning conclusions was that Stellantis—a sophisticated industry player with immense negotiating power—would have been unlikely to suffer a 26% overcharge without raising alarms at the time.
Moreover, Stellantis’ economic expert testimony was dismissed, with the tribunal refusing to rely on its overcharge calculations.
What This Means for the Auto Industry
This ruling not only shatters Stellantis’ hopes of recovering a massive payout but also sends a powerful message to other automakers considering similar legal action. The case underscores the difficulty of proving cartel-linked damages, even when prior antitrust rulings exist.
With this high-profile defeat, Stellantis may now be left recalculating its legal strategy—and the auto parts industry is watching closely to see if this marks the end of the road for cartel compensation claims.
