The cardboard cartel faces a 670 million euro mega-claim: a Valencia court admits the CDC's collective action against nine manufacturers

One of the largest private damages claims ever filed in Spain is moving forward. The Commercial Section of the Valencia Tribunal de Instancia admitted on 21 October the collective claim lodged by Cartel Damage Claims (CDC), a company specialised in competition damages claims, on behalf of 210 companies, seeking 670.17 million euros from nine manufacturers and their trade association over the cartel sanctioned by the competition authority.

The CNMC precedent and the overcharge question

The claim rests on the 2015 resolution of the National Markets and Competition Commission (CNMC), which fined 18 companies in the sector close to 58 million euros for market sharing and price fixing. On that basis, the GAMES Economics report filed with the claim — built on more than 1.4 million price records — estimates an average overcharge of around 11%, with a residual effect of between 4.9% and 8.8% lasting until April 2015 for purchases from cartel members and October 2014 for purchases from other suppliers. The claim also seeks compound interest on the damage up to 31 August 2026, which explains much of the final figure of 670.17 million euros.

Before going to court, the CDC attempted an out-of-court settlement through an ADR mechanism (MASC), which failed. The claim targets nine companies in the sector — including Saica, Smurfit Westrock, DS Smith, International Paper, Hinojosa, Petit and Insoca — and the Spanish Association of Corrugated Cardboard Packaging Manufacturers (AFCO).

A test for collective actions in Spain

The case will be a benchmark for mass antitrust damages litigation in Spain. Three questions will shape the proceedings: the passing-on defence — whether buyers passed the overcharge on to their own customers —, the evidentiary weight of the CNMC resolution, and the quantification method for the damage. For competition practitioners, the lesson of the filing is procedural: the failed MASC attempt and the detailed economic report show the level of preparation now required for claims of this scale. The case follows the line of recent collective claims in the sector, and follows the Supreme Court's recent guidance on the 5% compensation standard in the car cartel cases and on limitation and the umbrella effect in the milk cartel..

What the proceedings will decide

Three questions will shape the case. The first is evidentiary: how far the 2015 CNMC resolution binds the court on the existence and scope of the infringement, following the line set by the damages directive and Spanish implementing law. The second is the passing-on defence: the manufacturers will argue that the packaging buyers passed the overcharge down the chain, and the outcome will depend on the battle between economic expert reports. The third is quantification: the choice between the aggregate estimate of the GAMES Economics report and transaction-level calculations will move the final figure by hundreds of millions.

For the 210 claimant companies, the admission order is only the first step, but a relevant one: it confirms the standing of CDC and the formal sufficiency of a claim that will now face the defendants' statements of defence. The procedural calendar will stretch for years, with the CNMC resolution's final firmness and the economic evidence as the decisive battlegrounds.

The size of the claim also reflects the breadth of the affected market: corrugated cardboard packaging is an input for virtually every industrial and consumer sector, from food to e-commerce logistics. That transversality is what allowed the CDC to aggregate 210 claimants and what makes the case a reference for future collective actions in other cartel-affected inputs.

Fines annulled on a procedural defect, and the Danone precedent

The CNMC's 2015 resolution has its own court history: the National Court (Audiencia Nacional) annulled the fines in judgments issued between 2018 and January 2019, after finding a defect in the computation of the sanctioning proceedings' deadlines (the resolution was adopted on 18 June 2015 but not notified until five days after the maximum legal period had expired). The annulment rested solely on that procedural defect, without the court reviewing the merits. Even so, Barcelona Commercial Tribunal de Instancia No. 10 recognised in April that the anticompetitive practices took place between 2008 and 2013 and ordered a company of the Petit Group to pay Danone 63,164 euros in damages plus 35,181 euros in interest, according to the same source. In parallel, on 14 October the CNMC opened a separate investigation into several companies in the sector over possible non-aggression pacts, customer sharing and price coordination.

Source: El Confidencial (3 November 2026), verified the same day.

Related links

• The 5% compensation standard in the car cartel
• Limitation and umbrella effect in the milk cartel (STS 1635/2026)
• The MASC as a procedural requirement: a practical guide