FMCSA Called to Suspend TQL Authority Over Broker Transparency Waivers

By SafetyLane Magazine Regulatory Desk

“Broker transparency is not a courtesy or a negotiable contract term — it is a federal obligation. When waivers replace compliance, trust in the freight market collapses.”

Editor’s Note

Broker transparency has long been treated as an abstract regulatory concept — cited in law, debated in courtrooms, and buried in contracts few carriers have the leverage to negotiate. The complaint calling for suspension of TQL’s broker authority forces the industry to confront a simple but uncomfortable question: Can federal regulations be waived by private agreement?

This article examines the facts, the regulatory framework, and the broader implications for carriers, brokers, and enforcement agencies at a time when transparency is no longer optional, but foundational to market integrity.

A Turning Point in the Broker Transparency Debate

The long-simmering battle over broker transparency has reached a critical moment. In January 2026, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) was formally urged to suspend the operating authority of one of the nation’s largest freight brokers, Total Quality Logistics (TQL), over its continued use of broker transparency waivers in carrier contracts.

The request, filed through the U.S. Department of Transportation’s National Consumer Complaint Database by small fleet owner Leander Richmond, alleges that TQL has knowingly and repeatedly violated federal broker transparency regulations by conditioning access to freight on carriers waiving their rights under federal law.

If acted upon, the complaint could mark one of the most consequential enforcement actions in broker oversight history — and send a clear message across the freight brokerage sector.

Understanding Broker Transparency Under Federal Law

Broker transparency is governed by 49 CFR § 371.3, a regulation that requires freight brokers to maintain detailed transaction records for each shipment they arrange. These records must include:

• The total amount paid by the shipper

• The amount paid to the motor carrier

• The broker’s retained compensation

• Dates, locations, and parties to the transaction

Crucially, the regulation requires that these records be made available to carriers upon request. The intent is straightforward: to prevent hidden pricing practices, protect carriers from unfair compensation structures, and ensure accountability in brokered freight transactions.

However, for years many brokers have attempted to bypass this obligation by inserting contractual waivers into broker–carrier agreements — clauses that require carriers to give up their right to access transaction records as a condition of doing business.

The Case That Exposed the Practice

The current controversy cannot be separated from a landmark dispute dating back to early 2023. In that case, an owner-operator hauled a refrigerated load for TQL and later requested transaction records under § 371.3. TQL refused, citing a transparency waiver embedded in its contract.

After a complaint was filed, FMCSA intervened and ordered the broker to provide the records. When disclosed, the documents revealed that TQL had retained approximately 44 percent of the gross shipment revenue — a figure that shocked many in the carrier community and intensified scrutiny of broker pricing practices.

FMCSA subsequently instructed TQL to remove transparency waiver language from its contracts. Despite this directive, complaints allege that the broker continued to rely on similar waiver provisions, raising questions about compliance with both regulatory requirements and the oath brokers sign when obtaining operating authority.

The 2026 Complaint: Allegations of Ongoing Noncompliance

Leander Richmond’s January 2026 complaint asserts that TQL’s continued use of transparency waivers constitutes a material violation of its broker operating authority. Under the OP‑1 application, brokers certify that they will comply with all applicable federal regulations — not selectively, and not subject to private contractual carve‑outs.

The complaint argues that allowing brokers to enforce transparency waivers effectively nullifies § 371.3 and creates a two‑tier regulatory system: one for brokers with market power, and another for carriers forced to accept unfavorable terms to stay in business.

Richmond is asking FMCSA to suspend TQL’s authority until full compliance is achieved, including the permanent removal of transparency waivers from all broker‑carrier agreements.

Courts, Contracts, and Regulatory Gaps

Several lawsuits have already tested broker transparency in federal courts, with mixed results. In some cases, judges have ruled against carriers on procedural grounds, finding that informal FMCSA communications did not rise to the level of enforceable agency orders.

Yet even in those decisions, courts have acknowledged the unresolved tension between federal regulations and private contracts — particularly when contracts are used to waive rights established by law. Legal analysts widely agree that the enforceability of transparency waivers remains on unstable ground, especially as FMCSA moves toward clearer rulemaking.

FMCSA’s Pending Rulemaking: Closing the Loopholes

FMCSA is currently finalizing a comprehensive broker transparency rule expected later in 2026. The proposed rule would:

• Require electronic retention of broker transaction records

• Impose strict response timelines for carrier requests

• Clarify that transparency is a non‑waivable regulatory obligation

• Strengthen enforcement authority against noncompliant brokers

The rule is widely viewed as a direct response to years of disputes involving large brokers and the widespread use of contractual waivers.

What This Means for the Industry

For Motor Carriers

This case reinforces the importance of understanding broker contracts and asserting regulatory rights. Carriers should be aware that transparency waivers may soon be explicitly prohibited — and that requesting records under § 371.3 remains a lawful option today.

For Brokers

The message is clear: compliance cannot be outsourced to contract language. Brokers who continue to rely on waivers risk enforcement action, reputational damage, and potential suspension of operating authority.

For the Market

True transparency has the potential to rebalance negotiations, expose unfair pricing structures, and restore trust between carriers and intermediaries. While some argue that disclosure threatens broker competitiveness, regulators increasingly view transparency as essential to a fair and functional freight economy.

A Defining Moment

Whether FMCSA ultimately suspends TQL’s authority or not, the significance of this complaint cannot be overstated. It reflects growing frustration among carriers, increasing regulatory attention, and a clear shift toward stricter enforcement of long‑standing rules.

For an industry built on trust, documentation, and compliance, broker transparency is no longer a theoretical debate — it is a regulatory line in the sand.

As 2026 unfolds, the outcome of this case may define the future relationship between brokers and carriers for years to come.

SafetyLane Magazine provides in‑depth regulatory analysis and compliance insights for transportation professionals committed to safety, accountability, and industry integrity.