49 U.S.C. § 14916

Unlawful brokerage activities

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 49 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a)Prohibited Activities.—A person may provide interstate brokerage services as a broker only if that person—(1) is registered under, and in compliance with, section 13904; and(2) has satisfied the financial security requirements under section 13906.(b)Exceptions.—Subsection (a) shall not apply to—(1) a non-vessel-operating common carrier (as defined in section 40102 of title 46) or an ocean freight forwarder (as defined in section 40102 of title 46) when arranging for inland transportation as part of an international through movement involving ocean transportation between the United States and a foreign port;(2) a customs broker licensed in accordance with section 111.2 of title 19, Code of Federal Regulations, only to the extent that the customs broker is engaging in a movement under a customs bond or in a transaction involving customs business, as defined by section 111.1 of title 19, Code of Federal Regulations; or(3) an indirect air carrier holding a Standard Security Program approved by the Transportation Security Administration, only to the extent that the indirect air carrier is engaging in the activities as an air carrier as defined in section 40102(2) or in the activities defined in section 40102(3).(c)Civil Penalties and Private Cause of Action.—Any person who knowingly authorizes, consents to, or permits, directly or indirectly, either alone or in conjunction with any other person, a violation of subsection (a) is liable—(1) to the United States Government for a civil penalty in an amount not to exceed $10,000 for each violation; and(2) to the injured party for all valid claims incurred without regard to amount.(d)Liable Parties.—The liability for civil penalties and for claims under this section for unauthorized brokering shall apply, jointly and severally—(1) to any corporate entity or partnership involved; and(2) to the individual officers, directors, and principals of such entities.(Added Pub. L. 112–141, div. C, title II, § 32919(a), July 6, 2012, 126 Stat. 827; amended Pub. L. 114–94, div. A, title V, § 5508(a)(5), Dec. 4, 2015, 129 Stat. 1554.)Editorial NotesAmendments

2015—Pub. L. 114–94 substituted section symbol for “SEC.” before section designation.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 2015 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 114–94 effective Oct. 1, 2015, see section 1003 of Pub. L. 114–94, set out as a note under section 5313 of Title 5, Government Organization and Employees.

Effective Date

Section effective Oct. 1, 2012, see section 3(a) of Pub. L. 112–141, set out as an Effective and Termination Dates of 2012 Amendment note under section 101 of Title 23, Highways.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 11 cases (10 in the last 5 years), 2019–2025 · leading case: eShipping LLC v. Focused Transp. Solutions LLC (E.D. Wis. 2024).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

eShipping LLC v. Focused Transp. Solutions LLC (E.D. Wis. 2024). · cites it 9× “Plaintiff alleges Defendants violated 49 U.S.C. § 14916 for providing interstate brokerage services without authorization.”

FedEx Trade Networks Transp. & Brokerage, Inc. v. Airboss Def. Grp., LLC (D. Maryland 2024). · cites it 6× “” 49 U.S.C. § 14916 (a). Section 14916(c) provides that: “[a]ny person who knowingly authorizes, consents to, or permits, directly or indirectly, either alone or in conjunction with any other person, a violation of [ 49 U.”

Silva v. West Texas Frac Sand Logistics LLC (D.N.M. 2025). · cites it 5× “2 and 49 U.S.C. § 14916 (a)-(d) establish federal causes of action against brokers that displace Plaintiffs’ state law claims.”

Landstar Blue, LLC v. Perfect 1, LLC, Gozal Inc., & Jane & John Does 1–10 (M.D. Fla. 2025). · cites it 5× “Landstar’s Count VI Unlawful Brokerage Activities Claim Finally, Gozal argues that Landstar’s claim for unlawful brokerage activities under the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP- 21 Act), 49 U.S.C. § 14916 , is conclusory and fails to provide sufficient…”

Coyote v. Icon (Ariz. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 3× “Coyote filed an Amended Complaint in January 2020, asserting three primary claims: Count I against Icon and US Ecology for joint and several liability based on federal and state law theories; Count II against TransChem, Icon, and US Ecology for quantum meruit and unjust…”

Ripley v. Long Distance Relocation Servs., LLC (D. Maryland 2019). · cites it 3× “The Ripleys allege that the defendants have provided illegal interstate brokerage services in violation of 49 U.S.C. § 14916 (Count I), have engaged in illegal “weight bumping” in violation of 49 U.”

Skowron v. C.H. Robinson Co. (D. Mass. 2023). · cites it 2× “49 U.S.C. § 14916 (a). The parties do not dispute that C.”

Ortiz v. Ben Strong Trucking Inc (D. Maryland 2022). · cites it 2× “The court need not address any further 49 U.S.C. § 14916’s private cause of action, because any state common law claims (e.”

Landstar Ranger, Inc v. JC Tanda Transp. Inc (M.D. Fla. 2025). · cites it 2× “Landstar 3 In paragraph 48 of the Second Amended Complaint, Landstar alleges: “JC acted as a property broker pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 14916 when it contracted JC to transport the Shipment from Chesapeake, Virginia to Pleasant Prairie, Wisconsin.”

Diamond Transp. Logistics Inc v. The Kroger Co (S.D. Ohio 2023). “49 U.S.C. § 14916 (a). But “broker” is defined by statute to exclude “a motor carrier.”

Am. Sentinel Ins. Co. v. Day & Night Trucking, Inc. (W.D. Mo. 2024). “of logbook violations, mechanical defects of Day & Night trucks and trailers, and non-compliance with Department of Transportation rules and regulations; In failing to investigate Day & Night's business practices in forming and dissolving similar companies to avoid Department of…”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.