After a hiatus of almost seven years, Congress appears poised to enact laws which will, among other significant action:
| 1. | Convene a retooled household goods working group to make findings and recommendations to U.S. DOT’s FMCSA to revise and update the Federal consumer protections relating to interstate transportation of household good by motor carriers, including such transportation that is arranged by a broker of household goods, and the use of artificial intelligence (AI) (hereinafter the “HHG Working Group 2.0”). |
| 2. | Give FMCSA explicit authority to assess and collect civil monetary penalties against household goods motor carriers and brokers for violations of FMCSA’s “commercial regulations” (including Federal household goods Consumer Protection Regulations) through an in-house administrative process highly favoring the government instead of court, as is currently required by the Federal transportation law. |
| 3. | Give States access to federal grant funding to conduct certain interstate and intrastate HHG enforcement and keep the spoils. |
| 4. | Take measures to address fraudulent registration and crack down on chameleon carriers/brokers.[1] |
Background
The last time a HHG working group was convened by Congressional action was ten years ago as part of the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act. Unlike the FAST Act working group, there is no provision in the legislation requiring the US DOT to publish recommendations of the HHG Working Group 2.0 on the Department’s website. This omission is probably not going to be an issue because the legislation requires the Secretary of the US DOT to submit a report to Congress of a summary of the findings and recommendations and whether it intends to implement each recommendation and timeline for implementation. US DOT’s FMCSA undertook a formal rulemaking following FAST Act which included publication of all of the working group’s recommendations in DOCKETS, a publicly accessible repository of documents at regulations.gov during the notice and comment period. A similar notice and comment process would be expected prior FMCSA promulgating any regulations pursuant to the Household Goods Shipping Consumer Protection Reforms.
The scope of interested parties to be part of HHG Working Group 2.0 is much broader than the FAST Act group and HHG Working Group 2.0’s remit to develop findings and make recommendations includes a broader scope of HHG operations, including this time: HHG brokerage.
The Household Goods Shipping Consumer Protection Reforms would reverse an enforcement posture the FMCSA has been required to maintain since 2019, after an administrative law judge in a case called In Matter Darlene Riojas ruled claims alleging violation of commercial regulations must be exclusively adjudicated in U.S. district court (subject to an actual constitutionally appointed judge, rules of evidence, pre-trial practice and trial by a jury of peers), through a civil action commenced by the U.S. Department of Justice. The ALJ ruled this was the statutory framework Congress provided to FMCSA’s predecessor, the Interstate Commerce Commission.[2]
The effect of the law-change will be to reinstate and make lawful, the “practice” FMCSA used to enforce violations of the commercial regulations by an in-house administrative proceeding whereby the regulator effectively assumes the role of police, prosecutor, judge and jury and which the FMCSA had utilized since jurisdiction over certain commercial and safety violations was transferred from the ICC in 1995; continuing until the ALJ’s decision in Riojas.
What The Household Goods Shipping Consumer Protection Reforms Would Do
- Within a year of enactment, require the convening of the HHG Working Group 2.0 consisting of individuals expert in consumer affairs (new), HHG motor carriers and brokers (new), HHG associations, truck safety representatives (new) and “other stakeholders” (new) with a remit to review and make recommendations in a written report to the Secretary concerning:
| (1) | Technology’s effect on consumer purchasing habits in the sale and servicing of arranging and transporting interstate HHG shipments (new); |
| (2) | The number, type and elements of paperwork required of motor carriers and individual shippers in interstate HHG shipments; |
| (3) | The use of AI for consumer education and commercial practices (new); |
| (4) | Evaluation of the “status” of the changes made to the Consumer Protection Regulations adopted and promulgated by the FMCSA following the recommendations made by the FAST Act working group which took effect in 2022; and |
| (5) | The impact and frequency of ‘name spoofing’ whereby a registered HHG motor carrier or broker seeks to take advantage of the individual shipper “by registering under a name that is deceptively similar to an established registered” HHG motor carrier or broker (new). |
- Give FMCSA authority to administratively assess civil penalties by an enforceable final order for the commercial regulations if, after notice and opportunity for an administrative hearing, the agency finds that a person violated a provision, regulation or order.
- Authorize and incentivize States to use Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program (MCSAP) and High Priority (HP) Program funding to enforce Federal household goods transportation laws and regulations, and to retain the fines and penalties they collect from motor carriers and brokers for such violations, if the State has adopted laws or regulations that are compatible with Federal household goods regulations.
- Define terms requiring motor carriers, brokers and freight forwarders maintain a single “principal place of business;” to disclose any common ownership, management, control, or familial ties with another carrier, freight forwarder, broker or applicant for operating authority within the past three years; and gives FMCSA the authority to revoke or suspend registrations if an entity fails to comply with these requirements.
Impressions
It goes without saying that bad actors – enterprises that hold themselves out as legitimate HHG movers or brokers only to dupe naïve consumers into surrendering their household possessions and personal effects in ways violative to law to exploit possession of the goods for improper, illegal purposes – should be stopped and prohibited from inflicting such harms.
The Federal Consumer Protection Regulations and related statutes are certainly intended to protect individual consumer shippers from abusive tactics. The question is whether such rights and responsibilities are considered by the consumer prior to entrusting their property to a stranger. Does the average consumer take the time to research and interview movers or instead, does the average consumer at this moment in history consider hiring a reputable mover to be the equivalent of placing an order on Door Dash? The bad actors certainly would like the prospect to think it is that way by using enticing, “friction-free” websites coupled with ridiculous promises. Time will tell whether the FMCSA and State partners will be able to make a significant dent in removing unscrupulous entities because they didn’t maintain a principal place of business.
Takeaways
The household goods Consumer Protection Regulations are numerous and complex in application. The current minimum civil penalty for each violation that FMCSA proves is $2,052. Penalties increase annually. They cover pre-move communications, websites, consumer notices, move-paperwork and post-move dispute resolution, to name a few. In addition to such violations, the commercial regulations cover licensure. For an interstate household goods mover – that means household goods motor carrier authority to transport an individual shipper’s household goods across a state line. The current minimum civil penalty payable to the United States for lack of registration for not having active HHG operating authority when conducting an interstate HHG move is $39,615.
Unauthorized HHG transportation is not a hard violation for the FMCSA to prove and can result from circumstances that the motor carrier (and perhaps even the carrier’s insurer and/or insurance broker) would not expect. FMCSA has long held a motor carrier’s failure to evidence either cargo or liability insurance is in force on the FMCSA’s licensing and insurance (L&I) website at the time of the HHG transport in interstate commerce is sufficient to prove the carrier was not “registered” and therefore subject to the unauthorized HHG operating authority penalty. Significantly, the motor carrier may have the insurance required by Federal law in force during the relevant time but due to a technicality (such as mistaking a “COI” on file with a State regulator with evidence of financial security on file with FMCSA), evidence of that fact is not reflected in the FMCSA’s L&I. Any trips requiring evidence of insurance coverage falling within the gap appearing on the motor carrier’s L&I website may be used to prove the “unauthorized transportation (HHG)” violation. FMCSA takes “official notice” of the L&I regarding the motor carrier’s registration on a particular date. It is in this writer’s opinion, the “low-hanging fruit” the safety investigator will likely research prior to going in to conduct a compliance investigation.
Conclusion
Now might be a good time to consult with an attorney knowledgeable in compliance with the FMCSA’s commercial regulations, including the HHG Consumer Protection Regulations.
Dated: Sudbury, MA
June 5, 2026
Andresen & Borovick, LLP
323 Boston Post Road
Sudbury, Massachusetts 01776
www.abmasslaw.com
Tel: (978) 443-6868
The foregoing is designed to provide general information based on a summary of legal principles for clients and friends of the firm. It is not intended to be construed as legal advice, or legal opinion on any specific facts or circumstances. Companies and individuals should consult with legal counsel before taking any action based on these principles to ensure their applicability in a given situation. The information presented here and on our website should not be construed to be legal advice or the formation of a lawyer/client relationship. Copyright © 2026 Andresen & Borovick, LLP. All rights reserved.
[1] H.R. 8870, Building Unrivaled Infrastructure and Long-term Development for America’s 250th Act (BUILD America 250 Act), Title V, subtitle D – Household Goods Shipping Consumer Protection Reform, Secs. 5301 – 5305 (hereinafter, the “Household Goods Shipping Consumer Protection Reforms”). The Household Goods Shipping Consumer Protection Reforms are virtually identical to bills previously filed by Representative Holmes-Norton (H.R. 8505) and Senators Duckworth and Fischer (S.337), each titled the Household Goods Shipping Consumer Protection Act, plus adds a new section governing the work of the HHG Working Group 2.0.
[2] For background on the effect of the Riojas ruling on agency enforcement of the commercial regulations and FMCSA’s work-around (styled a “Letter of Probable Violation” or “LOPV”), see our post here.