Feedback for Carrier 411 from the Community of Motor Carriers

The following is a consolidation of feedback provided by carriers and stakeholders aimed at the recent changes to Carrier 411's FreightGuard Reports program. This feedback was submitted to [email protected], created with the permission of Carrier 411 CEO, Darren Brewer. Carrier 411 does not monitor this email, but Vigilant Transportation Services LLC, Home of the Stop the Scam! Podcast has been asked to monitor and report on submissions. These responses and suggestions are paraphrased and may not be direct quotes of respondents unless otherwise noted.

?

Introduction

I am proud to have been a voice that has spoken out regarding issues with the FreightGuard Reports program with Carrier 411. Despite being vocal in my criticisms, I feel a duty to the industry to balance those criticisms from a pro-carrier viewpoint for a more effective product geared toward the intent of the FreightGuard Reports program. Some of these responses are aimed to reducing broker liability as much as they are geared to holding brokers accountable for improper reports. Since CEO Darren Brewer began making dramatic changes to the program on October 1, 2024, I have been vocal in my criticisms, while trying to offer solutions to the problems I have seen that could be reasonable and easy to implement for the good of the industry, and not just for carriers. In a phone call with Brewer on October 3, 2024, Brewer asked for me to gather feedback for him that he could use to modify the program, so long as it was unemotional, clearly identifies a problem, and offers a solution. For the purposes of this task, I have agreed to protect the anonymity of all responders. Here is the full list of critiques that was offered.

There are several categories that appear to be emotionally driven where empirical evidence of fraud or malicious intent in a carrier's actions is better summarized under a different category. Some new categories appear to be emotionally driven and are rooted in standard industry practices or the statutory rights of carriers, thus appear to be designed to extort carriers from exercising their legal rights under the law or under industry standards. If there is, in fact, malicious intent in executing a carrier’s legal rights, such as attempting to use legal action to extort a broker into a fraudulent action, other categories would be better suited to describe the seriousness and nature of the infraction for which a carrier is being sanctioned.

?

Category: Carrier Status: Do Not Use (DNU)

If a broker feels that a carrier has committed an offense so serious as to warrant a FreightGuard under any category, it is a foregone that the carrier will be placed in a DNU status with the broker. This category is therefore a redundancy and is not needed. On the other hand, if a new C411 client goes through their TMS and issues a report under this category just because the carrier is listed as DNU internally before joining Carrier 411, then it gives brokers license to issue a report for old events that have already been settled or resolved. FreightGuards should be timely, and appropriate, and brokers should not be able to impose a sanction against a carrier for a past indiscretion. Depending on the amount of time that has gone by, the evidence for or against the carrier is old and may no longer exist. It is recommended that this category be eliminated.

?

Category: People Outside the United States or Canada

I may not be an attorney, however, this category can be considered a violation of federal anti-discrimination laws, where a person's origin or ethnicity is a protected class. Forcing a carrier to terminate the employment of a foreign dispatcher or representative based on the national origin or accent places the company in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. This category, though designed to give brokers the ability to punish carriers who utilize these foreign entities to commit fraud, is one that encourages violation of federal law. Carriers that have cross-border operations in Mexico, for example, may employ Mexican drivers coming into or out of the US legally. There are also dozens of brokerages who employ agents in Eastern Europe to give their brokerages 24-hour coverage for operations. These may very well be legitimate actors. Does that mean these brokerages should be immediately and irrevocably sanctioned? The description of this category sites specific types of businesses from specific countries, but some of these legitimately operate to support US companies and adhere to US law, thus should not be arbitrarily sanctioned. Brokers do not have the right to impose industry wide sanctions against a carrier for making a business decision to employ representatives outside the US or Canada if those representatives adhere to US law and operate within professional standards. This category should be changed to "use of foreign entities to commit fraud".

?

Categories: Identity Theft/FMCSA Data Compromised

Carrier profiles on Carrier 411 indicate when there is a recent change to a carrier's information in SAFER. This information is clearly noted in the profile narrative. Appearing in the profile narrative makes it informational in nature. FreightGuard Reports, by their nature, are indicative of negative behaviors. It is not a carrier's fault that their information may be composed in SAFER or if a scammer impersonates a carrier to commit fraud. Allowing these categories for applying reports implies the carrier was somehow involved in their authority being stolen or compromised. These categories should be eliminated, and notations about changes to a carrier's SAFER profile should remain in the carrier profile narrative so as to not stigmatize a carrier that has been victimized as someone who was complicit in the act of their authority being compromised.

?

Category: Legal Threats

It is a statutory right for any business to seek a legal means to resolve a dispute. This right is not just enshrined in federal law, but also in most broker/carrier agreements either by identifying a specific jurisdiction in which legal disputes are to be settled or if disputes are to be managed by arbitration. In any industry where a contractual violation occurs, attorneys are used to resolve such situations. There are judicial mechanisms in place to protect parties from frivolous suits but those mechanisms are utilized in the courtroom or arbitration under burden of proof. This category allows a broker to issue an industry-wide sanction against a carrier as an emotional response to a legal proceeding. It is not the broker's place to determine the merits of a legal action but the place of the judicial. A report under this category can be seen in a court as an attempt by the broker to extort a carrier into waiving their legal protections and rights under federal law or under the contract stipulations. The courts can determine punitive damages against either party in a suit. If this category is invoked in a report and the court finds against the broker in this matter, the broker will suffer perpetual liability and additional damages for loss of business using this category, or any other designed to punish the carrier for forcing the broker into litigation. If, however, the intent of threatening a suit is empty and designed to extort the broker into a specific course of action without the intent to pursue litigation, then it would be more appropriate to use the category "harassment and threats". Remember, a fraudulent entity with fraudulent intentions would never actually utilize the legal system as their fraud would be exposed in its use. An appropriate response by a broker when threatened with legal action is to say, "we will see you in court". This category should be eliminated as legal action is a standard procedure in conducting business and no entity using this appropriately should be sanctioned for exercising their legal rights.

?

Category: Filed on Bond

It is a carrier's statutory right to file on a broker's bond in situations where a broker refuses payment. If a carrier is using filing on a bond to commit fraud against a broker, the bond company will detect such and report the abuse of the bond process to the broker. At that time, there are more appropriate categories to place such an infraction if it is designed to use the bond to commit fraud such as "providing inaccurate or misleading info" or "providing fraudulent documents", whichever may apply. There is also a huge trend in scammers impersonating brokers. In these cases, brokers are being impersonated on hundreds of loads at a time, leading to a massive number of invoices being filed and rejected by brokers as the loads did not belong to the broker in the first place. Many carriers will then say they have a broker "X" rate confirmation and a broker "X" BOL, so they can reach out to the bond company, and they would be correct in absence of any further information per industry standard. There is no penalty against a broker for such cases to be presented for bond filings as the bond filings would be immediately rejected, and the carrier is left to their own devices to determine who the real broker for the load was and then pursue collections activity against the real broker or their customer as appropriate. A carrier is entitled to be paid in accordance with 49 CFR 377 and filing on the bond when the broker rejects the initial invoice is an industry standard procedure. Carriers should not be punished for following industry standard practices to get paid for work that they legitimately accomplished. If a carrier's intent to file on the bond is malicious and an act of revenge against a broker, it would be more appropriate to use "harassment or threats" as a category for such activity. As it stands, the category implies that a broker has the right to place a sanction against the carrier for following industry accepted practices and standards. This category should be removed.

?

Category: Demanding Additional Payment

The category description is clear that it is meant for demands "without a valid reason", but the examples listed in the description are valid reasons to request accessorial payments and are usually enshrined in the broker/carrier agreement and/or the rate confirmation. If such a demand is made, and the broker is capable of citing reason to deny based on contractual language or language contained in the rate confirmation, and the carrier relents, there should be no penalty assessed against the carrier. If the carrier disagrees with the decision and then takes matters into their own hands, such as holding cargo hostage to extort the broker, then there are more appropriate categories under which such a sanction should be filed. It is a carrier's right to request additional compensation for an accessorial not disclosed when booking a load, and each request needs to be taken at face value by the broker and decided upon based on the terms and conditions of the broker's contract. This category implies that brokers can use this category as an emotional response despite the broker's own contractual obligations. It is not an offense for a carrier to ask. It is an offense if a carrier commits acts of retribution because of an unfavorable decision on compensation and it can be better defined in a different category. This category should be removed entirely.

?

Limiting Reports to One Category

It was also brought up that in the past, brokers would issue reports under multiple and sometimes unrelated categories to make reports seem more severe than what really occurred. It was recommended that Carrier 411 limit category assignments for reports to only one specific category. When multiple categories would apply, then the single, most appropriate of the categories should be used, and the comments can detail the additional lesser infractions as part of the greater infraction. Regardless of the infraction, the presence of an active FreightGuard Report carries as much weight if one category is listed or if 10 categories are listed. Using more than one category could be indicative of an emotional response on the broker's part, and if litigation over the report was to commence, the broker could be held liable for an applied category that may not fit the actual situation. For example, if a carrier is accused of “holding cargo hostage”, “back-solicited shipper”, and “unauthorized re-brokering of shipment”, the broker could be held liable if one of the three identified categories were not true, opening the broker to liability over an inaccurate report. This specific example was brought up because it was observed in one case where the carrier was only guilty of “back solicited shipper”, and the broker felt that piling on additional serious accusations would exacerbate the impact of the report on the carrier more than a single accusation would.? Single accusation reports carry as much weight as multiple accusation reports. Limiting a report to one category forces the reporting broker to make a case based on that category and reduces their exposure to liability for what could be otherwise seen as an emotional response to an incident.

?

Other Remarks

One respondent offered a host of suggestions designed to advocate for fairness and a path toward due process. Among the suggestions include:

1.????? "FreightGuards should require documented proof of subject matter that may qualify as libelous if those claims are found to be false." The ability for the platform to allow the upload of supporting documents and evidence from both sides to be stored in the Carrier 411 database with the broker and carrier comments will allow for platform users to have more access to proof for either side. It will also serve as proof for disclosure purposes should the matter be pressed into litigation.

2.????? "Carrier411 should require that a company should require a complaint form that includes the signature of said company’s president, not only allowing a cooling-off period, but making the complainant aware that any false claims can lead to legal complications for more than just that stressed-out broker." Basically, part of any report should include an acknowledgement from the president or owner of the filing party that the report is filed with their full knowledge and consent, and that any false report could be subject to litigation and liability if so determined by a court of law. To be frank, the eternal presence of a report is now certain to cause litigation if the reported party feels they are innocent of the accusation, and any entity that files a report needs to be prepared to support the allegations in court, as a carrier has nothing to lose by initiating litigation proceedings.

3.????? "Carrier411 should be willing to post a disclaimer stating that they do not endorse the claims made by these brokers, reserve the right to remove outlandish remarks, and that their site should be used as a guide to inform brokers, not as an advisement to determine whom to do business with. Too many brokers take the information found on vetting sites as gospel, and completely blacklist experienced carriers as a result." We do acknowledge that such a disclaimer does exist both in the report header and on the Carrier 411 website, but not to the full extent of the suggestion. The CEO of Carrier 411, Mr. Brewer, indicates that his team does strike down reports that are emotionally charged or reports used as a weapon to extort carriers. Regardless of the disclaimers available on the Carrier 411 website and their end user agreements, it is not clear under what standards Mr. Brewer's team acts, but that could very well be by design.

4.????? "Carrier411 should allow carriers to post respectful rebuttals from carriers, similar to how business owners can reply to bad reviews on Google, and these comments should be transparent and readily available to all users." We acknowledge that Carrier 411 gives carriers a 500-character block in which to provide a response to the accusations can be provided, and that response is visible to any Carrier 411 subscriber to take or leave at face value. In reference to item 1 on this list, 500 characters may not be enough to allow for a detailed and respectful defense. Further, the 72-hour response period may not be enough to allow for a well-crafted defense that is void of emotion and filled with factual information for the carrier's defense. Perhaps more time should be made available for responses, or that carriers can edit responses as new, pertinent, information is available to support the carrier's defense.

?

Summary

Of the 24 new categories under which a report can be filed, we have received what we feel are legitimate issues and situations that would require the alteration or elimination of seven categories. The arguments are rooted in legal terms or in terms of accepted industry standards. If those legal rights or standards are pressed for nefarious purposes, then there are more appropriate categories under which a report can fall for more appropriate impact. Carrier 411 and the FreightGuard Reports program do have a place in this industry. ?Responsible use of this very powerful tool will go a long way toward improving the effectiveness and fairness of the program. Given the recent changes, specifically the now eternal nature of even "deleted" reports, carriers have nothing to lose by turning to litigation when they feel they are being sanctioned unjustly. Only time and the courts will tell if these changes are in the best interest of the industry, as believed by Mr. Brewer, or not.

?

If you have additional feedback for Carrier 411 regarding the platform or its recent changes, please email us at [email protected]. Any other comments or topics of discussion involving fraud in the industry can be directed to [email protected]. Special thanks to all respondents who participated and contributed to this article.

?