The Supreme Court hands down an opinion in Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha:

In particular, the question is whether a rail carrier receiving cargo from a ship counts as a "receiving carrier" within the meaning of the Carmack Amendment.  Looking at the text, history, and purposes, the Court held that when cargo starts its journey overseas under a through bill of lading, the railroads that take up the goods at a U.S. port are not "receiving carriers" and therefore Carmack does not apply.  As a result, the Court held that this case had to be litigated in Tokyo.

Functionally, that means a lower amount of liability for shipping companies (carriers) [who, along with U.S. companies that ship and receive products internationally, will probably care - despite Daniel Fisher's dismissive language at Forbes].  As SCOTUSblog sums up:

[T]he Court today held that the inland portion of a shipment of goods from overseas under a through bill of lading is governed by the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (COGSA) rather than the Carmack Amendment to the Interstate Commerce Act. 

COGSA, a maritime limitation of liability, only makes carriers liable for a maximum of $500 per package, a lower amount than under Carmack.  Essentially, the Court permits the ocean carrier to extend the the more protective "maritime" limitation of liability to cargo damage that occurs on land during the overland leg of the journey.