Last month, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) closed their public forum on their upcoming broker transparency rules. Carrier organizations, such as the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA) and the Small Business in Transportation Coalition (SBTC), have been lobbying for these changes as far back as 2020, but the issue is complicated and full of potential problems for the future of the relationship between carriers and brokers. While trucking companies yearn for an easier way to investigate and dispute broker claims, the brokers, themselves, claim that the proposed changes are a “misguided overreach” of carriers.
While broker transparency sounds like a common sense idea, what does it actually mean? Today, the LZ Blog jumps into the minefield that is broker transparency and what it means for carriers and brokers and consumers.
“I Can See You”
Broker transparency is a multi-faceted list of demands from the trucking companies and carriers. At this time, according to the FMCSA, “carriers already have a legal right to broker transparency.” However, this right has been diminished due to workarounds implemented by brokers to avoid having to openly share what they believe are their private records. By implementing contract waiver clauses and only allowing for the sharing of paper records, brokers have chipped away at a carrier’s ability to defend themselves in cases of accidents. “FMCSA noted that broker-carrier contracts ‘frequently contain waivers of this right,” and carriers are tired of finding out about this after the fact. The FMCSA also found that brokers have been avoiding making electronic copies of their records available to further disrupt carriers from being able to easily obtain the information. With the help of the OOIDA and the SBTC, the FMCSA has now put together a list of amendments to help carriers with their mission to force brokers into being more transparent.
There are four amendments proposed by the FMCSA to try and meet these requests:
- “Require property brokers to keep their records in an electronic format.” This rule is to make it easier for carriers to review records. As of right now, if a company would like to dispute a claim made by the broker, then they have to travel to the broker’s office to request to see the evidence. In the event of an incident, carriers claim that this is obfuscates their ability to figure out what may or may not have occurred. Being able to request documentation via email will supposedly help both sides resolve issues quickly.
- “Modernize and tailor the required contents of the records to better achieve broker transparency.” Requiring brokers to streamline the contents of their records, carriers say, will benefit both sides. This amendment would make it imperative that brokers show all “payments, fees, and charges associated with the transaction,” making it, again, easier for brokers and carriers to resolve disputes between themselves.
- “Reframe broker transparency as a regulatory duty imposed on brokers to provide records to the transacting parties.” The FMCSA is hoping this amendment will remind brokers that carriers have the right to peruse pertinent records. Some trucking companies feel that brokers forget that they are a team, and that transaction records are purposefully kept private to empower the broker.
- “Require brokers to provide the records within 48 hours when a party to the transaction requests for those records.” This amendment has been added to give a succinct timeline to brokers to make records available after an incident. Forty-eight hours to remotely provide online records seems reasonable, according to the amendments’ supporters, and will help fast-track the solutions to any problems that may arise between brokers and carriers.
The Responses So Far
There are at least two sides to every issue, and broker transparency is no different. For the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association and the Small Business in Transportation Coalition, these changes are long overdue. Protecting the trucking companies and their employees, these two organizations claim, is paramount to taking care of the industry as a whole. “OOIDA President Todd Spencer said updating the rule would ‘help carriers defend themselves against alleged claims on a shipment’ and emphasized a broker’s ‘duty to comply with regulations.’” Their goal is to level the playing field by enforcing the right to broker transparency for the carriers and by stopping the brokers from avoiding their obligations to be transparent. Spencer goes on to say that “broker transparency is necessary for a fair, efficient transportation system and is especially important to help carriers defend themselves against alleged claims on a shipment…” However, even the SBTC leadership has made some criticisms of the proposed amendments, stating that the new rules do not go far enough, and they are disappointed that the FMCSA is not banning disclosure waivers in broker contracts. The executive director of SBTC states that “because they fail to connect all the dots and say this is a duty and trying to waive such a duty constitutes evasion of regulation”. Other than that specific complaint, though, both boards are firm in their belief that the FMCSA should implement these rules as soon as possible.
Not every organization is on board with these changes, however. The Transportation Intermediaries Association (TIA) represents brokers, and they are not pleased with the FMCSA’s amendments. “TIA condemned the rule, saying the right to transparency ‘is obsolete and un-American,’ and ‘has no place in today’s highly transparent marketplace.’” As stated above, they also called it a “misguided overreach” of the FMCSA. There are also concerns that any attempts to balance the power between carriers and brokers does not account for the fact that carriers already possess more power in negotiations, merely by having their choice of brokers. “’There are no contractual obligations for a carrier to accept a load from a broker, and shippers are only contractually bound to tender a load to a broker if they have specifically signed a ‘contractually’ bearing agreement to do so…” Other opponents state that if brokers are forced to show their records with carriers, then carriers will have access to more private information, such as profits and costs. Meanwhile, organizations like the TIA believe there are far more pressing matters for the FMCSA to deal with at the moment. To back up that claim, they claim that, during the Covid-19 pandemic, there were zero complaints filed with the FMCSA about broker transparency. To brokers, this is a non-issue.
Conclusion
The FMCSA opened the amendments up to public commentary in 2024, and they continued to take comments and recommendations until January 2025. While they are still reviewing the opinions, there are two main sides to the proposed amendments. Even though the carriers and shippers believe that this will benefit everyone, including the consumers, organizations like the TIA disagree, claiming that this intrusive. They have even called the proposed amendments “un-American.” Either way, the FMCSA is due to make a decision about them this year, and the trucking industry is waiting with bated breath to see what the outcome will be.
__________________________________________________________________________
Meaghan Goldberg covers recruitment and digital marketing for Lionzone. A Patterson, GA native, after graduating from both Valdosta State University and Middle Tennessee State University, Meaghan joined Lionzone in 2018 as a digital recruitment strategist before becoming the social media manager.
Resources:
https://cdllife.com/2025/time-is-running-out-to-comment-on-fmcsas-broker-transparency-rule/
https://www.truckingdive.com/news/fmcsa-broker-transparency-nprm-2025/733553/
