S4.E27 - FMC’s Order to Show Cause: What’s Really Going On?

🚢 By Land and By Sea Podcast – an attorney breaking down the week in supply chain

🎙️ Captain’s Log – “FMC’s Order to Show Cause: What’s Really Going On?”

🗓️ Week of July 3, 2025

The Maritime Professor® presents By Land and By Sea Podcast - an attorney breaking down the week in supply chain

with Lauren Beagen (Founder of The Maritime Professor® and Squall Strategies®)

This week, I’m unpacking breaking news from the Federal Maritime Commission:

🔹 The FMC issued an Order to Show Cause to the World Shipping Council, questioning its jurisdiction over carrier agreements and limited antitrust immunity.

🔹 What this means for the liner shipping industry and carrier cooperation agreements.

🔹 The newly introduced FMC Reauthorization Bill and its proposals to strengthen regulatory oversight.

📅 Want to go deeper?

Join me for a live webinar on July 10 at 3 PM Eastern where I’ll break down this Order to Show Cause, explore what it means for carriers and shippers, and answer your questions live. Use promo code USABDAY for 34% off — that’s $99 instead of $150.

https://www.themaritimeprofessor.com/service-page/fmc-wsc-webinar-live-10-jul-3pm-et?referral=service_list_widget

🎧 Tune in to hear the full breakdown in plain language: www.TheMaritimeProfessor.com/podcast

Want to bring this kind of insight to your team? Explore corporate trainings and webinars with The Maritime Professor® at www.TheMaritimeProfessor.com.

⚠️ This content is for educational purposes only and should not be considered legal advice.

#maritime #shipping #FMC #supplychain #maritimepolicy #ByLandAndBySea #TheMaritimeProfessor

Chapters

• 0:00 Emergency Press Conference
• 2:36 FMC Order Against World Shipping Council
• 4:38 Understanding World Shipping Council
• 9:07 Limited Antitrust Immunity Explained
• 14:10 Battle Behind the Order
• 19:30 Key Questions About the Impact
• 22:32 FMC Reauthorization Act of 2025
• 28:54 Looking Ahead to Season Five

Transcript

Speaker 1: 0:01

I got soul coming through, flying free. Skies are blue, all the waves are mixing room. I got soul coming through, won't stop till the beat's done On top of the world. Thank you, this is a good night. I'm living bold this is what it looks like On the tip of my word. We are breaking in here for an emergency press conference. The Federal Maritime Commission just shook the ocean shipping world with a bold move against the World Shipping Council. How's that for drama? Or is it just another routine review? It could be either one. There are some tea leaves here that I'm reading that seems like there might be more to the story. Either way, this special edition, this Thursday edition that couldn't wait until next week, america's birthday edition is something you want to tune into, something you want to stick around here. You're not going to want to miss this.

Speaker 1: 1:40

Hi, welcome back to by Land and by Sea, an attorney breaking down the weekend supply chain presented by me the Maritime Professor. I'm Lauren Began, the founder of the Maritime Professor, former FMC International Affairs Attorney and founder of Squall Strategies. By Land and by Sea is your friendly guide to the regulatory twists and turns of global ocean shipping. And me, well, I'm your favorite Maritime attorney. While I'm your favorite maritime attorney, it should not be considered legal advice. There's no attorney-client privilege created by this video or this podcast. If you need an attorney, contact an attorney. This is plain language. Maritime created so that anybody, not just lawyers or industry insiders, can understand what's happening in the world of shipping. Let's dive into this special edition because, as you know, ocean shipping moves the world. All right, story number one we actually have two stories today, so you're going to want to stick around to the end. But story number one, let's just jump right into it.

Speaker 1: 2:36

On June 26th last week, the Federal Maritime Commission issued a formal order to show cause to the World Shipping Council. Issued a formal order to show cause to the World Shipping Council. What was in there? They ordered the World Shipping Council to show cause as to why the commission has jurisdiction over their agreement and why the FMC should not just cancel the agreement entirely for lack of jurisdiction. So, all right, the FMC issues these order to show causes. So basically, what's happening here? The fmc is saying look, world shipping council, you filed this agreement with us which grants you certain protections under the shipping act. That's why any agreement is filed with the fmc. They have a limited antitrust protection, meaning things that otherwise might have been a little bit monopolistic are going to be granted limited antitrust immunity by being filed and monitored by the FMC. What the FMC is saying here is, through this order to show cause, prove that this agreement still falls within our authority and complies with our law Basically the authority given to the FMC by Congress. They're saying look, we're not sure if this agreement still covers the scope of what the FMC was made for. They're saying look, we're not sure if this agreement still covers the scope of what the FMC was made for, and we need you to tell us why you think it is, because if we don't hear from you or if we don't agree with you, or like things don't work out, we're going to get rid of it. So that's kind of what's happening here.

Speaker 1: 3:57

These agreements provide the World Shipping Council and anybody that files an agreement with the FMC this limited antitrust immunity, like I said, meaning that they can collaborate on things like vessel sharing. We see that often, right, those are the alliances the FMC wants the World Shipping Council here to explain how their activities fit inside the framework of the FMC's authority and also show that they haven't overstepped, and I think that's what this is really getting at Show that the World Shipping Council, through this agreement or through their activities, hasn't overstepped into areas that the FMC doesn't or can't regulate, and the notions here are things like political lobbying or advocacy. So let's take a step back. Who is the World Shipping Council? We've talked about them a lot, but I'm pulling language actually from the filed agreements that we can use their own words as to who the World Shipping Council is. So the World Shipping Council from the filed agreement.

Speaker 1: 4:51

The World Shipping Council, wsc, is a trade association that provides a unified voice for the global liner shipping industry on public policy matters impacting the industry. Since its establishment in 2000, world Shipping Council has interfaced with governments and advocated industry position with regard to laws, policy rules and regulations of governments and international organizations affecting liner carriers, and increased government and public awareness of the importance, necessity and efficiency of liner carrier services. The members of WSC have decided to expand the scope of issues to be addressed by and within World Shipping Council to include certain issues within which would arguably fall within the FMC's jurisdiction. The purpose of this agreement is to comply with the Shipping Act by authorizing the parties here to discuss, communicate and cooperate with regard to all matters as set forth in this agreement. So that's what they say. That's what they explain is the World Shipping Council's purpose.

Speaker 1: 5:47

There are some things, there are some notions about policy interfacing with governments, international organizations, but they kind of hinge on saying, look, we're filing this now, which they filed in 2020, by saying they've decided to expand the scope of the issues to be addressed and that might include things or, arguably, would fall within the FMC's jurisdiction. So all this to say right, why are we kind of highlighting who the World Shipping Council is, all this to say that this order to show cause is a big deal? It's a big deal because the World Shipping Council is a big deal. And when the FMC is issuing an order to show cause against one of the largest, if not the largest, collective representing I mean, I think it's 80 to 90% of the world's ocean going cargo movement vessel fleets, that's a big deal. So, okay, taken on its face, right, they've issued an order to show cause could be routine. The FMC is saying, hey, just let us know what you think. Why do you think that you're still within our scope? If everything's cool, no big deal here. Here's the tea leaves that I think we're all kind of reading here.

Speaker 1: 6:59

If you saw, freight Waves had an article published this week where they had a statement from the outgoing FMC chairman, lou Sola. So to catch up if you missed last week's episode, gosh, there's a lot going on. If you missed last week's episode, the current well, the current FMC chairman, I'll say that now. The current FMC chairman, lou Sola, announced that he would be leaving the FMC June 30th. So he's actually not the current, he is the just immediately former FMC chairman, lou Sola. His term was up June 30th. He could have held over for a year, apparently decided not to, and so he left June 30th at the conclusion of his proper term. So before he left, though, he gave a statement to FreightWaves where he said I'm not a big fan of the WSC and their approach. I've been very vocal on that always.

Speaker 1: 7:48

Rather than work with us on the rulemaking Congress tasked us to do in the OSRA, they sue us in federal court. Okay, so what's he talking about? The two petitions that we keep coming back to? There's two petitions currently in front of the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit. Those two petitions the D&D rule, the detention to merge, final rule. We've talked about that a lot and the petition that's challenging the unreasonable refusal to deal or negotiate with respect to vessel space accommodations. We've been following both of these. These are the petitions against the final rules for both the detention to merge final final rule and this unreasonable free to negotiate. Both of them were challenged by the World Shipping Council into Federal Court of Appeals, the DC Circuit, and that's what former Chairman Sola is saying here.

Speaker 1: 8:36

He's like they didn't just talk to us. Instead of working with us on the rulemaking, they sue us in federal court, which there was a notice and comment period, right. There was back and forth. The World Shipping Council did submit comments. So it's not entirely true that they weren't working with the FMC. They were working with the FMC along with everybody who was submitting comments in terms of working with the FMC.

Speaker 1: 9:01

But to me, what this is signaling is that Foreign Insurance Sola is a little bit frustrated by the FMC getting sued in federal court, and probably not least of which is it ties up a lot of manpower for the FMC to defend itself in federal court and that's something that we've talked about a lot. They teeter anywhere between 120 and 150 people at the entire agency and that includes everybody, so that's not just the lawyers that are available to be working on defending itself in federal court, and so it takes away manpower and that might also be wrapped up into the frustrations here. But again, his statement. I'm not a big fan of the World Shipping Council and their approach. He said I've been very vocal on that always. Rather than work with us on the rulemaking, congress tasked us to do so, he's saying, look, we were directed to do these rulemakings. They sue us in federal court, and so you can sense the frustration. It underscores this tension behind this, potentially behind this order to show cause. But, like I said, it might just be a routine review. It might just be. We've seen the FMC reviewing agreements systemically. Kind of it's part of their job. They're supposed to be monitoring all agreements filed, but all of the timing here, right, and the statement coming out right around the same time.

Speaker 1: 10:20

So what's the significance of agreements filed with the FMC? Like, why is this a big deal? Okay, so can the World Shipping Council say, okay, fine, then we won't file the agreement they could. But look, agreements aren't just paperwork, right. They're kind of this legal backbone that allows ocean carriers to collaborate or cooperate without running into monopolies, right. And so when everybody's saying, oh, the carriers are working together and it's monopolies, right. And so when everybody's saying, oh, the carriers are working together and it's monopolies, well, not exactly, because they do file.

Speaker 1: 10:48

And usually what people are talking about are these vessel sharing agreements? Right, those are the alliances and they're operational in nature. They are not setting rates together. The alliances that we're talking about, that usually come up when we're talking about monopolies, and limited antitrust immunity is so that they can work together, vessel share, but they really are still competing against each other. This is a little bit different and so, well, let's get back to it. So what are the agreements filed with the FMC? When the carriers file these agreements with the FMC, like I said, typically the ones that we talk about are these vessel sharing agreements, the alliances. They're enjoying limited antitrust immunity, meaning, even though they're kind of monopolistic, the Shipping Act allows it because the FMC is watching it. So that's what I mean. This could be routine. This could just be the FMC kind of routinely going through their agreements, as they're tasked to do and required to do under the Shipping Act.

Speaker 1: 11:51

Because of this, those that file the agreements can cooperate on operational components like the vessel sharing, these agreements, I really, truly believe, help keep the global system running smoothly, efficiently. We've talked about it a lot that I think that the agreements, the vessel sharing agreements, the alliances actually help operate or open up better rates, better routing options. They allow, instead of five vessels doing the same route half filled, now you can have two or three vessels doing the same route and then you now open up the opportunity for those other vessels to go to smaller ports. More kind of unique routing options. More kind of unique routing options. We've talked about the reasons why I think that these vessel sharing agreements are a good thing and really have helped the shipping community, although I understand the frustration that's happened during the COVID congestion years. But these are operational collaborations, operational. So these agreements strike that delicate balance, allowing this cooperation that benefits the supply chain while the FMC oversees it, to prevent that monopolistic or anti-competitive behavior that could otherwise harm shippers.

Speaker 1: 12:52

Okay, so let's get back to this order to show cause. What's really going on here? What does a cooperative working arrangement really mean? And that's what this is all hinging on, and I know that this is getting a little bit complicated. I'm going to be doing a live webinar next week on this July 10th to dive into it and answer your questions a little bit. But we're trying to keep it basic so that we can just kind of present what's happening so that you know what's happening.

Speaker 1: 13:16

So the FMC says in its order to show cause so that's what spurred this whole thing they sent this order to show cause. That said, for an agreement to get limited antitrust immunity, it has to be about real operational stuff like how carriers work together day to day. If it's not operational, then it probably doesn't qualify for that special protection. That's kind of the crux of what the FMC's argument is in this order to show cause. They certainly say it a lot more formally. They root it in case law. But that's kind of what they're saying. If it's operational, you're probably cool. If you're talking about operational stuff, you're probably cool. If it's not operational, then it's probably not cool. It probably doesn't qualify for this limited antitrust immunity that gets given through agreements, right? So if you file an agreement, you get this little bit of. You're not totally monopolistic, because we're watching you. That's why the FMC is asking the World Shipping Council to show that their agreement is really about operational cooperation.

Speaker 1: 14:12

Now this particular agreement, this World Shipping Council is relatively recently filed. I mean, I say recently because it was filed about five years ago. It was filed in 2020 and it's required to be reviewed regularly, right? So that's why I'm saying it might not be this big deal, it might just be part of the routine review and they're just trying to ask the World Shipping Council to justify the existence of the agreement. The World Shipping Council actually was only established in 2000. So all of this is actually relatively recent 25 years for the Shipping council itself to be established and only five years for this agreement to be unfiled. And, like I said, from their intro kind of who are we? It says that they were starting to enter into things in their discussions that arguably came under FMC authority. So they kind of did it with the intention of we might be under FMC authority, so we're going to file this agreement.

Speaker 1: 15:04

So, if you listen to what outgoing FMC chairman Lou Sola says and you kind of read between the lines, like I said, perhaps maybe it's not this routine review To me it feels a little bit like the FMC might be giving the World Shipping Council a little hip check. They might be kind of saying look, the agency is tasked with keeping competition fair and balanced and they also want to make sure that the agreements filed that enjoy this limited antitrust immunity, that enjoy this. You're not totally monopolistic. Because you are, you know, because you kind of have this, this thing that we're watching you, they're saying, if you want to enjoy this, then we're you're going to have to kind of show us why you should be properly filed here, and I think it's a little hip check. Perhaps, maybe because they did challenge the FMC in federal court, right, that's what the statement out of Lusola said, that like you could have worked with us, you didn't you filed in federal court. I mean, taken right at plain language there, who knows? Right, it could just be routine regulatory housekeeping. There's a hint that the FMC maybe is sending the stronger message. Maybe that was just Lusola, maybe that was just former Chairman Lusola saying this is how I feel about it. But that's the beauty of the FMC All the commissioners have a vote, have a say, have a voice of the FMC. All the commissioners have a vote, have a say, have a voice. We're now down to three commissioners, right, because we have Commissioner Rebecca Dye, we have Commissioner Max Vekic and we have Commissioner Dan Maffei, former chairman, so we have these three that are now remaining. The orders of show cause still had former chairman Lou Sola on it, but now we have the three remaining that are going to work it out. It looks like the World Shipping Council, the first glance statement out of World Shipping Council by then. The whole thing has to be wrapped up by March.

Speaker 1: 16:59

Like I said, at its simplest the FMC is doing a routine review. There might be more. So, before we move away from the story, I've been using AI to help surface some of the most pressing questions that I think that you might have about the complex world of ocean shipping, something that I've been kind of testing out. I'm going to be debuting a new segment called Policy to Portside what You're Really Wondering, ai Edition. So I've asked AI to actually pull together some questions that you might have on this story just to see if maybe it might trigger, maybe it scratches that itch of this is something that you were actually wondering. So first question from AI is this just routine regulatory housekeeping or something bigger? I think the answer really is maybe both.

Speaker 1: 17:41

The FMC regularly reviews these agreements, like I said, but the tone and timing and statement out of former FMC Chairman Luzola suggests that there might be a stronger message here. This is definitely one to watch, that is for sure. Could this impact freight rates or service? Potentially, but not really. Not this specifically. And if it were to impact freight rates or service, that's going to be down the line.

Speaker 1: 18:07

This agreement isn't a vessel sharing agreement. This is a trade association talking, arguably talking about operations, and that's why they filed and I think that's what we're going to see at least partly in their response to the order to show cause. But look, if disruptions happen, if carrier cooperations agreements, if agreements are reviewed with a much stricter eye, if agreements are reviewed with a much stricter eye, maybe we're going to see some movement there. What happens if the World Shipping Council can't prove its agreements fit the law? What if the FMC doesn't buy their arguments here? The FMC could revoke this limited antitrust immunity protection, potentially exposing the carriers in this agreement to legal risks and possibly disrupting cooperative practices that usually follow under the World Shipping Council.

Speaker 1: 18:58

So again, I want to make this very clear this is not talking about the vessel sharing agreements. This is not talking about the alliances. This is the World Shipping Council and the cooperative discussions that take place within the World Shipping Council. So are shipping alliances going away? Not necessarily, and I would say pretty strongly, nope for the time being. Alliances are tied to different agreements right, I keep saying that, but they are tied to different agreements. Those are vessel sharing agreements.

Speaker 1: 19:26

But look, the fact remains if antitrust immunity is being questioned or made to be a lot more strict, I think everybody who files an agreement at the FMC needs to review their own agreement. See, is this something that squarely falls inside the scope of what the FMC's authority is, or is it a little squishy on the authority that the agreement finds itself filed at the FMC under? I think it's just a good practice, perhaps a good warning to everybody who has agreements at the FMC, but just a good routine practice in kind of justifying existence and enjoyment of this antitrust immunity, something that everybody should take a look at and make sure. Is your agreement still squarely under the scope of the FMC? So the last two questions out of AI. Should shippers or brokers be doing anything right now? Just stay informed. Right, right now. Just stay informed. Keep an eye on carrier communications. Consider discussing with legal advisors. Find an attorney if this really concerns you, if you have an agreement filed with the FMC.

Speaker 1: 20:33

But I don't want to be causing concern here. This could be routine. This is clearly a non-vessel sharing agreement. Excuse me, this is not a vessel sharing agreement alliance type conversation at this moment. This is about these collaborative working agreements and the World Shipping Council specifically. It might just be that the World Shipping Council comes back with a fantastic argument and the FMC says, ok, thanks, Just checking. Maybe, right, maybe Is this something that's likely to affect the global shipping market. It's too early to tell. It really is too early to tell. Even though I'm dropping drama all over this, it's really too early to tell. The World Shipping Council represents the largest share of the industry, the large share of the industry, so this is definitely something to watch closely for those reasons.

Speaker 1: 21:18

So, again, like I said, today was a little bit. This is a little bit complicated. I'm going to be breaking it down from a very basic one-on-one level. We're going to be able to kind of chat a little bit more. I'm going to have a live webinar on this July 10th, so next Thursday at 3 pm Eastern US time. I'm going to be breaking down this order to show cause. Talking a little bit about the FMC's argument. Explore some of the implications that this might have talk about kind of what this might mean in the longer term for bustle sharing agreements, but right now it doesn't mean a lot. It's not changing much, but there are some tea leaves, like I said that I'm watching here and I can give you a little bit of my insights. So it's going to be a general education discussion. But if you're interested in that webinar, register at themaritimeprofessorcom. You can actually use a promo code right up until the day of the webinar USABDAY. It's going to get you 34% off of the $150 fee for the webinar, which drops the price down to $99. You're going to get these expert insights and really an opportunity to ask me questions about it. We're going to have to keep it non-legal advice for sure, but it's going to be educational discussion hosted through the Maritime Professor. Again, that live webinar is July 10th at 3 pm. Use USAB Day as a promo code and you're going to get some money off. All right.

Speaker 1: 22:32

Story number two, last story of the day. We're only. This is a quick, special edition. So the last story. I just want to bring this to your attention because it's also a big deal this week. Actually, it happened last week, same day, on June 26th.

Speaker 1: 22:43

Representative Dusty Johnson, a Republican from South Dakota, introduced the Federal Maritime Commission's Reauthorization Act of 2025. So this is a bipartisan bill aimed at renewing and strengthening the FMC's authority through fiscal year 2029. So these reauthorization bills, they happen right. They happen whenever you need more funding going to an agency. They happen pretty much for all agencies. This one's for the FMC. So here we are Reauthorization Act of 2025.

Speaker 1: 23:10

But there's some proposals that are included that I thought were interesting and worthy of making sure that we note. So first one it establishes this reauthorization act. So an otherwise funding bill has some additional things in it. It establishes a formal process for reporting complaints against shipping exchanges and it notably calls out the Shanghai shipping exchange. We've been seeing a lot of kind of anti-China rhetoric coming from this administration generally. This isn't coming from the Trump administration. This is coming from Representative Dusty Johnson, a Republican from South Dakota. But we've been seeing both Congress and the executive branch talk about ways of kind of combating some of the Chinese dominance. I guess I should say, or Chinese influence or influence right, let's stay there. So this is notably calling out Shanghai Shipping Exchange for reporting complaints and anytime there's an opportunity to report complaints and have it investigated. I think it's probably a good thing.

Speaker 1: 24:10

So the second proposal that I wanted to call your attention that comes in this Reauthorization Act. It directs the FMC to report to Congress on anti-competitive business practices or non-reciprocal trading practices. So we've seen this in recent conversation with the FMC and I kind of credit Chairman Lusola former Chairman Lusola with really expanding the awareness of the Foreign Shipping Practices Act and Section 19 of the Merchant Marine Act of 1920. Those two authorities, the FMC authorities for anti-competitive business practices, unfair or unfavorable shipping conditions. The FMC has these authorities but now under this reauthorization act, should it pass, would direct the FMC to now include that in their report to Congress on anti-competitive business practices or non-reciprocal trade practices. So an interesting development. We're going to get to see kind of a continuation of what's going on with some of these investigations or some of the things that they're watching. It also codifies, so creates kind of the formal definition, I guess you would say, of controlled carrier, which helps to clarify which carriers fall under US regulatory scrutiny. The FMC publishes a controlled carrier list. It's an important list but it kind of had this squishier definition. This now has more of a specific codification of the definition of controlled carrier, should this reauthorization bill pass.

Speaker 1: 25:38

It also prohibits the FMC from requiring ocean carriers to report information already provided to federal agencies. This is an effort to reduce duplicative reporting burdens. So I want to say that again, it's prohibiting the FMC from requiring ocean carriers to report information already provided elsewhere. Basically saying look, if the ocean carriers already have to give this information somewhere, don't make them do it again. Just go ask your federal partners for that information. I kind of like that right. Right streamlining, so that it reduces the burden on the ocean carriers for reporting purposes. Right, it's strictly administrative. If you have to send the same thing to three different agencies all within the same US federal government, you would think that they would share that information.

Speaker 1: 26:24

This bill proposes to also expand FMC advisory committees. Now, we've been talking about this a lot. This is something that Commissioner Rebecca Dye has proposed in some of her fact-finding missions, which is an advisory committee on either. This is proposing both a seaports advisory committee and an ocean carrier NVO advisory committee. So we have the National Shipper Advisory Committee. Now we would create a National Seaports Advisory Committee and a National Ocean Carrier Advisory Committee. I think these are great Federal Advisory Committees.

Speaker 1: 26:59

Engaging with federal agencies is always a fantastic thing, I think, because it really is another opportunity for the agency to find out what's happening in the private world. I mean, right, there's going to be one-offs here and there, but if you can actually get a group of industry members together, stakeholders together, to provide recommendations and just kind of, for the most part, non-biased conversation on what's happening in the industry, it's a great thing. It also requires majority vote of the commission to disclose FMC investigation efforts to outside parties. What this bill says is that by doing this it's reinforcing the FMC's independent nature and protecting sensitive investigative processes. So when the investigations are going on, they're saying that it requires a commission majority vote to disclose what's happening in those investigations to outside parties. So it's a bipartisan effort. Like I said, it's being co-sponsored by Dusty Johnson of South Dakota, but then also Representative Mike Ezell, a Republican from Mississippi, ms John Garamendi, a Democrat from California, and Salud Carvajal, a Democrat from California. So why does this matter. This bill aims to ensure the FMC has the tools and authority needed to kind of expand into the current day requirements and demands of what the industry is demanding out of the FMC. It supports transparency, accountability and I love that it's including additional advisory committees, which is additional engagement for regulated entities to engage with the agency.

Speaker 1: 28:32

As you may have noticed, I've been rolling out some fresh updates lately. I tried one out today. We had a brand new podcast logo. Did you like it? Did you notice it? Like I said, we started this what You're Really Wondering policy to Portside AI edition and now we're also going to be looking at sponsorships for season five.

Speaker 1: 28:54

We've been doing this podcast now for four seasons. We're going to be starting once we restart after the summer break in September, with sponsorships. So, after receiving more and more inquiries over the past few months, I'm excited to officially open the door for sponsors who want to connect with a highly engaged maritime and supply chain audience. I'm telling you, I'm getting feedback in real life on this podcast, which is fantastic. I love, I love that. But I think that season five is kind of shaping up. I wanted to shake it up a little bit and have a little bit more of a reformatting, a fresh take. So that's what we're doing.

Speaker 1: 29:28

If you're interested in sponsoring by Land and by Sea, let's chat. You can reach me anytime at info at themaritimeprofessorcom or go check out themaritimeprofessorcom to look around and see more information on it. If you're interested in partnering or amplifying your message in this niche community, niche community, niche community, reach out info at the maritimeprofessorcom. If you like this episode, be sure to follow, subscribe and leave a review. Want to go deeper or bring this kind of insight to your team?

Speaker 1: 29:57

Visit the maritimeprofessorcom to explore corporate trainings, tailored briefings, on-demand webinars, like next week's order to show cause discussion. It's a live webinar, all designed to make complex maritime regulations practical and easy to understand. And if your organization needs help navigating cause discussion, it's a live webinar all designed to make complex maritime regulations practical and easy to understand. And if your organization needs help navigating the legal or strategic side of ocean shipping regulations, head over to my legal company, squall Strategies. That's where I provide consulting services, regulatory guidance and policy support for clients working directly across the global supply chain. As always, this podcast is for educational purposes only and is not legal advice. If you need an attorney, contact an attorney. This is Plain Language Maritime, created so that anybody, not just lawyers or industry insiders, can understand what's happening in the world of shipping. So until next time, I'm Lauren Began, the Maritime Professor and you've just listened to by Land and by Sea. See you next time.