U.S. port-entry fees targeting China-linked and China-built vessels remain scheduled to resume Nov. 10, even after Washington and Beijing agreed last week to extend their broader trade truce until Jan. 10, 2027.
The discrepancy leaves liner operators and cargo interests awaiting a formal U.S. Trade Representative action that would align the maritime-fee suspension with the newly extended diplomatic accord.
The fees were suspended for one year beginning Nov. 10, 2025 as part of the U.S.-China economic détente. Under USTR’s governing notice, the pause expires at 11:59 p.m. ET Nov. 9; fees would again become applicable at the start of Nov. 10 unless the agency issues another modification.
The measure stems from USTR’s Section 301 investigation into China’s maritime, logistics and shipbuilding policies. It would impose service fees on vessels operated by Chinese companies, Chinese-owned vessels, and, in a separate provision, Chinese-built ships operated by non-Chinese carriers. The original action also established a distinct fee regime for foreign-built vehicle carriers.
Trade truce buys time
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said Sept. 23 that the U.S. and China agreed to extend the “Busan Agreement,” a trade truce that had been scheduled to expire Nov. 10, by two months to Jan. 10. The extension was announced as Chinese President Xi Jinping met in Washington with President Donald Trump.
The summit concluded Sept. 25 with limited public detail on the economic arrangements. USTR Jamieson Greer said that details of the limited trade agreements would be released today, while reports indicated the two countries had agreed to continue discussions on broader trade issues, including agricultural trade, non-tariff barriers and tariff relief for selected goods.
The truce announcement did not automatically amend the Section 301 notice, and no formal notice extending the fee pause had been issued as of Sept. 28.
Exposure extends beyond China lines
The prospective U.S. fees are important because they could affect a much wider set of operators than Chinese carriers such as Cosco Shipping (1919.HK) and OOCL (0316.HK).
The Section 301 action includes separate treatment for China-built vessels operated by carriers outside China. In the original fee schedule, covered Chinese vessel operators and Chinese-owned vessels faced a $50-per-net-ton fee, while non-Chinese operators using Chinese-built vessels would face the higher of $18 per net ton or $120 per discharged container. The action also provided for escalating fee levels in subsequent years.
The USTR action was structured to limit fees to one chargeable call per vessel per rotation and no more than five chargeable rotations per calendar year. It also contained exclusions and relief provisions, including for certain small vessels, vessels arriving empty, specified specialized trades, and certain owners that commit to acquiring U.S.-built tonnage.
If revived, the charges could prompt carriers to adjust vessel deployments, port rotations and network design to reduce exposure. Carriers could also seek to recover costs through surcharges or all-in freight rates, potentially widening the impact to U.S. importers and exporters.
Reciprocal stakes
China’s reciprocal “special port fees” on U.S.-linked vessels were suspended on a similar timetable, raising the prospect of a parallel return of Chinese charges if the U.S. measure is allowed to revive. Both governments paused the maritime measures in November 2025 as part of the broader trade stabilization effort.
The timing is especially awkward for shipping lines: The broader U.S.-China accord now runs beyond the maritime-fee deadline, but the fees themselves remain governed by a separate USTR administrative action. A new notice would be required to extend, revise or otherwise dispose of the Section 301 port-fee program.
More than 200 maritime and trade stakeholders had urged USTR to extend the suspension, arguing that a restart would inject costs and uncertainty into trans-Pacific networks.
Read more articles by Stuart Chirls here.
Read more:
Hapag-Lloyd revises Zim offer as Israeli approval concerns persist
But no pandemic high: Asia-US container rate at $9,600
New data shows Suez route transits rose 27% in August
Hurricane Polo disrupts Mexican Pacific ports with high winds, heavy rain
The post No mention of U.S.-China ship taxes in trade truce appeared first on FreightWaves.
Lowe’s is launching a drone delivery service in partnership with DoorDash and Alphabet’s Wing to increase same-day delivery speed, making it the first home improvement retailer to use unmanned aerial vehicles for e-commerce fulfillment.
Drone service is available for select products as a pilot program at Lowe’s store in Matthews, North Carolina, the company announced on Thursday. Lowe’s (NYSE: LOW) is the latest retailer to piggyback on Wing and DoorDash’s existing drone delivery operations in the Charlotte area.
Lowe’s said customers can receive a curated list of small products — hand tools, paint supplies, tape, batteries, soap — in as fast as 20 minutes. The service is suited for items weighing up to 2.5 pounds that are easily forgotten yet critical to finishing a home improvement task.
Customers access drone delivery through the DoorDash (NASDAQ: DASH) app, where Lowe’s products are displayed, and select the drone delivery option during checkout.
Home Depot recently introduced nationwide, express same-day delivery from stores using DoorDash and its pool of on-demand drivers.
Why It Matters: Retailers understand they need to offer ultra-fast delivery to meet growing customer expectations and be competitive with other stores, as well as marketplaces like Amazon. Other retailers using drone delivery include Amazon and Walmart. Amazon uses its own drone technology, while Walmart partners with Wing.
In July, Wing and Walmart brought drone delivery in the Orlando, Florida, metropolitan area. Initially available at two supercenter locations, the service has expanded to three more locations in Central Florida. Walmart previously launched drone delivery in Houston, Atlanta and Dallas-Fort Worth. The partners are working to offer drone delivery from more than 270 locations in nearly 20 metro areas, including Los Angeles, San Diego, Miami and Philadelphia, by 2027.
In Charlotte, DoorDash and drone operator Wing deliver food for Panera and other stores located together at a shopping center.
DoorDash and Wing first launched drone delivery together in Australia in 2022. Since then, the partnership expanded to the U.S., with drone delivery service available to DoorDash customers in parts of Southwest Virginia, the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex and Charlotte.
Broader expansion of drone delivery requires regulatory approval to balance concerns with noise, privacy and aviation safety in crowded airspace.
Click here for more FreightWaves/American Shipper stories by Eric Kulisch.
RELATED STORIES:
Home Depot offers nationwide express delivery from local stores
Amazon drone delivery expansion targets 500 cities by year’s end
Costco expands ultra-fast delivery through DoorDash, Uber
The post Lowe’s test drives drone delivery appeared first on FreightWaves.
Amazon said Thursday that sellers will be able to ship one manufacturing run to a single Amazon-operated facility near their factory and reach customers in eight countries from that inbound shipment. The service, Global Warehousing and Distribution (GWD), connects to the U.S. today and adds seven more countries by the end of the year: the U.K., Japan, Germany, France, Italy, Spain, and Canada.
Once all eight are connected, storage costs will run up to 45% lower than Amazon Warehousing and Distribution (AWD) in the U.S., and replenishment into Fulfillment by Amazon (FBA) will be up to five days faster, the company said. Inventory will sit in one pool and move to a specific country only when demand shows up there, then flow into local FBA fulfillment centers.
Only 30% of Amazon’s selling partners list in more than one country, according to the company. Those that do earn 70% more revenue on average than sellers in just one.
Going global “meant essentially starting a new business in each country,” Sunny Jain, vice president of Worldwide Fulfillment by Amazon, wrote in a company blog post.
GWD sits alongside AWD, which Amazon has expanded beyond the U.S. into the EU, U.K., and Australia for sellers who want low-cost bulk storage with automatic replenishment into FBA. Amazon is also rolling out end-to-end supply chain visibility over the coming weeks: one interface tracks a shipment across Amazon-managed fulfillment from the moment the seller creates it, with a single reconciled unit count.
Compliance testing starts with toys
Sellers have told Amazon that compliance is the biggest reason they don’t expand internationally, Jain wrote. Every country sets its own requirements for packaging, labeling, safety testing, and ingredient restrictions, and sellers have often worked them out after the product was already manufactured.
Toy sellers now get a single specification for each destination country’s testing, labeling, and packaging requirements. One test submission satisfies multiple countries’ certification requirements, and existing certifications are recognized. Sellers in Amazon’s pilot program for one-submission testing reported savings of up to 60% on compliance costs, the company said.
Electronics and baby products follow by the end of the year. In 2027, Amazon plans to extend the approach to more categories and give sellers requirements and costs before they manufacture a single unit.
MORALVE, a family-run home organization company based in Canada, has expanded from the U.S. into Canada, the U.K., and Germany.
“Being able to understand the requirements for each country and then use Amazon’s logistics network to move inventory across multiple countries removed a lot of the complexity that traditionally comes with global expansion,” co-founder Mo Kuhail said in Amazon’s announcement.
Seller Central adds eBay, Shopify, TikTok, and Walmart
In a separate post the same day, Mary Beth Westmoreland, vice president of Worldwide Selling Partner Experience at Amazon, wrote that the first version of the company’s multichannel selling tools lets sellers connect eBay, Shopify, TikTok, and Walmart accounts to Seller Central, import and link off-Amazon listings, view sales and orders from those channels, and fulfill across them. The tools roll out gradually to sellers in the U.S. store over the coming months at no additional cost.
More than 95% of independent sellers in Amazon’s store sell across multiple channels, the company said. On the Manage Orders page, a seller can select a Shopify order, fulfill it through Amazon, and tracking updates flow back to Shopify automatically.
Orders placed on rival storefronts now route straight into Amazon’s fulfillment network.
A profitability dashboard will pull sales, ad spend, and traffic from connected channels into one view.
“We have a team of three dedicated to reporting, and I’d estimate they spend about 5 hours at the end of each month to compile everything by logging into each channel individually,” said Pamela Lee, director of digital operations at Elizabeth Mott, an Amazon selling partner.
Westmoreland wrote that Amazon is working toward Seller Central becoming “the single place where independent sellers manage their entire business, not just their Amazon listings, across every channel where they sell.”
The post Amazon offers one inbound shipment to reach eight countries appeared first on FreightWaves.
Federal prosecutors charged Kristopher Lunsford in a semi-truck investment scheme involving more than $105 million. The Henderson, Nevada, resident faces six wire fraud counts and two money laundering charges. Investigators claim hundreds of people bought leases expecting passive income from commercial trucking operations. A separate SEC action describes an even larger operation covering approximately 765 investors nationwide.
Participants typically invested between $25,000 and $40,000 for each vehicle, according to the federal indictment. They expected guaranteed weekly payouts ranging from approximately $1,000 to $1,250. Lunsford represented that he would purchase equipment, hire drivers, secure insurance and operate each unit. Customers performed no work under the arrangement while expecting profits generated through freight activity.
SEC claims operation represented a 2,000-truck fleet
The SEC filed a separate civil action against Lunsford, AKL Transport and Southern Truck Leasing. Regulators claim those defendants raised at least $127 million between May 2023 and May 2025. Many participants lived around Tampa, Florida, although the program reached people nationwide. That broader period begins months before the criminal indictment’s timeline starts in December 2023.
The SEC claims the businesses represented that they owned and operated approximately 2,000 trucks. Customers expected $1,250 weekly for each vehicle across a five-year investment term. Regulators calculated that promised return at about 260% annually. Their complaint contends the claimed fleet size “was materially overstated.”
The businesses also represented that investor funds would purchase discounted commercial semi-trucks. Their operation would find drivers, source cargo loads, obtain insurance and maintain equipment. Participants believed transport fees charged to carriers generated their returns, according to regulators. The SEC instead claims new deposits funded earlier payouts through a Ponzi-style structure.
Investigators detail where the money went
The DOJ claims Lunsford and others solicited more than $105M from December 2023 through May 2025. Investigators contend approximately $75M from newer participants went toward earlier payouts. More than $25M funded personal enrichment, including real estate, sports cars, jewelry and luxury purchases. Only approximately $2M supported business expenses and operations, according to prosecutors.
The SEC describes different totals across its broader civil case. Regulators claim roughly $52M, about 40% of deposits, went toward earlier investors. They also accuse Lunsford of misappropriating approximately $33M for personal use. Spending included nearly $10M in cash withdrawals and roughly $6.2M for travel, bars and nightclubs.
The SEC also cites at least $1.9 million in casino-related expenses. Lunsford, AKL Transport and Southern Truck Leasing consented to proposed judgments without admitting the civil allegations. Those agreements require court approval before taking effect. Regulators continue investigating while a judge will later determine potential disgorgement, interest or civil penalties.
Criminal case carries possible prison time
The FBI investigated the criminal case, while federal prosecutors will handle the charges. Each wire fraud count carries a maximum 20-year prison sentence upon conviction. Money laundering charges could bring up to 10 years apiece. The United States also seeks $105,940,214.93 in forfeiture from proceeds from the claimed scheme.
An indictment represents a formal accusation rather than proof of criminal conduct. The law presumes Lunsford innocent unless prosecutors prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Federal authorities created an online questionnaire for people who believe they became victims. The DOJ also provides information about victims’ rights and upcoming hearings through its case webpage.
Why it matters
The case highlights the financial risk behind transportation investments that promise large, predictable returns with little investor involvement. Verifying fleet claims, business activity and revenue sources can help professionals identify inconsistencies before committing money.
Click here for more articles on cargo theft and freight fraud by Phil Brink.
Federal indictments target nearly $600K in interstate cargo theft tied to Memphis – FreightWaves
Masked thieves cut trailer hinges, steal Black Angus beef in Philadelphia – FreightWaves
The post Feds charge semi-truck business owner in $105M investment fraud scheme appeared first on FreightWaves.
Borderlands Mexico is a weekly rundown of developments in the world of United States-Mexico cross-border trucking and trade. This week in Borderlands Mexico: Customs proposal raises concerns over border delays, cargo seizures; and OmniTRAX expands rail-served capacity in Phoenix market.
Customs proposal raises concerns over border delays, cargo seizures
Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum is pushing another overhaul of the country’s customs rules that could significantly increase scrutiny of imported goods.
While the initiative aims to protect domestic manufacturers from imports that may be entering the country at artificially low values, critics say the proposal could potentially expose cross-border shipments to more inspections, documentation requirements and precautionary seizures.
Sheinbaum submitted the proposed amendments to Mexico’s Customs Law, or Ley Aduanera, to the Chamber of Deputies earlier this month as part of the government’s economic package for 2027.
The legislation is aimed primarily at combating undervaluation — the practice of declaring imported merchandise below its actual value to reduce duties and taxes.
The proposal comes as Mexico continues tightening enforcement across its ports and land-border gateways while seeking to protect domestic manufacturers from imports the government says may be entering the country at artificially low values.
The initiative was formally referred to the Chamber of Deputies’ Finance and Public Credit Committee, which held a working session Tuesday with officials from Mexico’s National Customs Agency, or ANAM, as well as representatives of private industry, according to La Jornada.
The committee is now preparing a draft opinion on the legislation, with a vote expected as early as next week. If approved by Congress and enacted, the amendments would take effect the day after publication in Mexico’s Diario Oficial de la Federación.
One of the most consequential changes involves the circumstances under which Mexican customs authorities could detain imported merchandise over questions about its declared value.
Under the proposal, authorities would gain greater ability to initiate verification procedures when they determine that an importer has declared a value below the transaction value of identical or similar merchandise.
The legislation would also remove an existing 50% undervaluation threshold associated with precautionary seizure in certain circumstances.
The administration argues that undervaluation erodes Mexico’s import-tax base while placing domestic manufacturers at a disadvantage against goods entering the country at artificially low declared values.
Another provision would amend an existing customs law to reduce from 50% to 20% the difference-in-value threshold used to presume an infraction for goods entered under customs regimes in which duties are calculated but not immediately paid, El Financiero reported.
The government also wants customs authorities to be able to carry out precautionary seizures when an inspection identifies objective evidence suggesting irregularities in the declared value of goods that are not already subject to estimated prices established by Mexico’s Finance Ministry.
Authorities would first have to conduct a valuation analysis under procedures established by the Customs Law.
The legislation also proposes changing how importers can replace or lift a precautionary seizure. For value differences of less than 20%, an importer could generally use a cash deposit or customs guarantee account. Differences of 20% or greater would generally require a cash deposit.
Mexican lawmaker Roberto Albores Gleason posted on Facebook that more than 2,500 customs operations valued at about $89.6 million currently escape precautionary seizure because of the existing 50% threshold.
For manufacturers, importers, customs brokers and logistics providers operating between the U.S. and Mexico, the biggest practical question may be how aggressively ANAM uses the expanded authority if the legislation becomes law.
Greater scrutiny of customs valuation could mean importers need substantially stronger documentation supporting transaction values, particularly for related-party transactions, royalties, assists and transfer-pricing adjustments. Trade law firm Sandler, Travis & Rosenberg said those areas are likely to receive greater scrutiny under the proposal.
The implications could extend beyond customs compliance.
Gilda Varela, director of customs and foreign trade for Mexico’s automotive industry association, AMIA, warned that eliminating the existing 50% threshold could disrupt just-in-time manufacturing if automotive components are seized while valuation disputes are resolved, according to El Universal.
Representatives of bonded warehouses also raised concerns about congestion, storage costs and insufficient space if precautionary seizures increase.
The customs initiative arrived in the Chamber of Deputies on Sept. 8 and was formally referred Sept. 9 to the Finance and Public Credit Committee for consideration.
As of Wednesday, the proposal remained at the committee stage and had not been approved by the full Chamber of Deputies. La Jornada reported that lawmakers were expected to circulate the committee’s draft opinion Wednesday and could vote on it next week.
OmniTRAX expands rail-served capacity in Phoenix market
OmniTRAX is expanding its rail-served industrial footprint in Arizona with the acquisition of 25 acres in Casa Grande, citing growing demand from manufacturing and nearshoring activity in the Phoenix region, according to a news release.
The property aims to provide industrial outdoor storage, or IOS, and transload services for customers serving Phoenix and the broader Southwest. The site is near major industrial companies including Lucid, Hexcel, LKQ, Tractor Supply and Wright Asphalt.
OmniTRAX, a fleet and transportation management software platform, said demand for industrial outdoor storage in the Phoenix market is outpacing nationwide demand, with particularly strong activity around Casa Grande because of advanced manufacturing growth and the region’s proximity to the U.S.-Mexico border.
The acquisition follows OmniTRAX’s purchase of the Sonoran Valley Railroad and is part of the company’s $100 million commitment to develop a national network of rail-served real estate properties offering supply chain services.
The Casa Grande expansion also adds capacity along an increasingly important freight corridor connecting Arizona manufacturing operations with Mexico, where nearshoring investment has helped drive demand for industrial and logistics space.
Why it matters: U.S.-Mexico manufacturers rely on tightly timed cross-border supply chains, and expanded customs valuation enforcement could increase compliance costs and disrupt freight flows when shipments are detained.
The post Borderlands Mexico: Customs proposal raises concerns over border delays, cargo seizures appeared first on FreightWaves.
Chart of the Week: Freightos Baltic Daily Index – China to North America West, China to Mediterranean SONAR: FBXD.CNAW, FBXD.CMED
Container rates from China to the North American West Coast and to the Mediterranean climbed together through June and into July. Over the past seven weeks they have split completely, and demand explains very little of the gap.
The Freightos Baltic Daily Index for China to North America West (FBXD.CNAW) closed at $8,446 per forty-foot equivalent unit (FEU) on September 23. That is nearly double its 12-month average of $4,381 and about four times what shippers paid in September 2025. The China-to-Mediterranean index (FBXD.CMED) has gone the other way. It has fallen to $3,591 per FEU, down more than 50% from its July peak of $7,540 and now below where it started the year.
In January, moving a box from China to Genoa or Valencia cost about 1.7 times as much as moving one to Los Angeles. Now the relationship has flipped: a West Coast box costs 2.35 times as much as a Mediterranean one.
A spread that wide usually means American importers are fighting for space while European demand dries up. SONAR’s port-pair ocean booking data says otherwise.
Confirmed TEU bookings from Shanghai, Ningbo and Yantian to five major Mediterranean ports are up 38% from a year ago, and 11 of 13 lanes show year-over-year growth. On a 28-day average, bookings are up roughly 11% since the July 1 rate peak. Bookings from the same Chinese ports into North Europe are up 26% year over year and 7.5% since July. European demand is not collapsing. It is holding steady or growing even as rates have been cut in half.
On the North American West Coast, the booking data is less uniform. Total confirmed TEUs from China to the U.S. and Canadian West Coast are up about 50% from last year. Nearly all of that growth, however, comes from Long Beach, where bookings on all three origin lanes have more than doubled. The median West Coast lane is up only about 1% year over year. Bookings into Los Angeles from Ningbo are down 33%, and Oakland and Seattle are down on most lanes. Even at the most generous reading, volumes are rising at a fraction of the pace of rates.
Bookings aren’t a perfect proxy for containers loaded, since some are canceled or rolled to later sailings. But growth this large and this widespread is hard to explain away as noise.
If demand isn’t driving the split, supply is at least pointing in the direction.
On Asia-Europe, carriers have been gradually shifting services back through the Suez Canal. Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd moved four more Asia-Europe services off the Cape of Good Hope routing this month, and Suez container tonnage is up 54% year-to-date. The shorter route frees up vessels that had been tied up in Cape diversions, so effective capacity is growing faster than cargo. Carriers are also rejecting fewer Mediterranean bookings than a year ago, 7.1% versus 8.3%, a sign of increasing availability.
The trans-Pacific has lost capacity instead. Typhoon-driven congestion at Chinese hubs since mid-July has pulled ships out of rotation and disrupted schedules. Carriers have leaned heavily on blank sailings, announcing nine in a single week this month. Bunker fuel costs are also rising again with tensions around the Strait of Hormuz, which raises the floor on the longest routings. Xeneta reported that only 29% of vessels arrived on time globally in August, the third straight monthly decline.
But supply alone doesn’t explain the size of the moves. SONAR data shows carriers are rejecting fewer West Coast bookings than a year ago, 8.3% versus 10.1%, even as rates have quadrupled. That suggests space is being rationed by price rather than a shortage of ships. Spot rates price only the cargo not covered by annual contracts, and with 10 carriers controlling roughly 90% of global capacity, small changes in available space are turning into outsized price swings in both directions.
The next test comes in early October, when exporters rush to move cargo before China’s Golden Week factory shutdowns. Analysts expect one more push on trans-Pacific rates before the holiday. After that, rates could ease as congestion clears and the capacity carriers have been holding back returns to the Pacific. If the Mediterranean is any guide, trans-Pacific rates can fall quickly even while bookings hold up.
About the Chart of the Week
The FreightWaves Chart of the Week is a chart selection from SONAR that provides an interesting data point to describe the state of the freight markets. A chart is chosen from thousands of potential charts on SONAR to help participants visualize the freight market in real time. Each week a Market Expert will post a chart, along with commentary, live on the front page. After that, the Chart of the Week will be archived on FreightWaves.com for future reference.
SONAR aggregates data from hundreds of sources, presenting the data in charts and maps and providing commentary on what freight market experts want to know about the industry in real time.
The FreightWaves data science and product teams are releasing new datasets each week and enhancing the client experience.
To request a SONAR demo, click here.
The post Trans-Pacific rates soar, Mediterranean sinks, and demand doesn’t explain either appeared first on FreightWaves.
HANNOVER, Germany — Clarios is taking Battery Manager, its monthly-fee battery-monitoring service for commercial fleets, to Europe. The company announced the expansion Sept. 14, timed to the IAA Transportation show in Hanover, Germany.
The service was running on about 1,100 connected vehicles across last-mile, long-haul and day cab operations in early September, Cagatay Topcu, vice president of Connected Services at Clarios, said during a Sept. 8 media briefing. The company is working with 20 fleets and expects to pass 2,000 vehicles in October, he said.
Clarios introduced the service as Battery Manager Pro in March at the Technology & Maintenance Council’s 2026 exhibition in Nashville, Tenn. At the time, it expected to sign its first customer that month, FreightWaves reported. Junior Barrett, global director of business development, said Clarios will reach about 2,000 paying installs by the end of September.
Some fleets overspend on batteries, Topcu said, running eight on a truck or replacing them every year. Others end up with trucks stranded by a dead battery. Clarios estimates the service saves a typical fleet about $500 per truck per year.
What the sensor tracks
The hardware is an aftermarket sensor on the battery’s negative post, a wire harness and a Clarios gateway that sends the data to the cloud. Heavy-duty trucks generally don’t have a battery sensor, Barrett said, and Clarios’ analytics run on the data that sensor collects.
The sensor works with AGM and SLI batteries from any manufacturer, including ones Clarios doesn’t make, and with trucks from any OEM, Barrett said. Topcu said it covers 12-, 24- and 48-volt systems, including the low-voltage side of battery-electric vehicles.
Christina Yarnold, director of product management for Connected Services, said the service reports on three things: a battery nearing end of life, a state of charge low enough to risk a no-start, and a failing starter or alternator.
“It’s not about the data. It’s about insights and actions. Nobody needs another dashboard,” Yarnold said.
Low-charge alerts can go by email or text to whoever is on duty. Because each sensor is paired to a single battery, a technician replaces only the one that’s failing.
Pricing and payback
Pricing varies with fleet size, complexity and engagement and runs as high as $15 per vehicle per month for smaller fleets, Barrett said. At that rate, a truck costs $180 a year to monitor against Clarios’ $500 savings estimate.
Asked about a hypothetical 50,000-truck fleet, Barrett put the savings at $25 million a year. That figure counts only hard costs such as jump starts and tow trucks.
“Soft cost isn’t in that math: driver sitting waiting, customer experience,” he said.
In Europe, Barrett said, the draw is downtime and driver hours. A battery failure that hits when a driver is out of hours takes that driver off the road.
Self-install and telematics integration
Clarios first assumed Battery Manager would need professional installation and hired a third-party installer. Fleets told the company their own technicians could handle it. Barrett said technicians now finish in 15 to 20 minutes after their first unit, and one union shop did its first in under 10. Setup runs through Clarios’ ConnectHub mobile app.
For now, each truck carries a Clarios gateway. Barrett called that a short-term strategy. Longer term, Clarios plans to pull sensor data through the gateways telematics service providers already have on trucks. Barrett said Clarios reaches small fleets through those providers and sells directly to large ones.
“In the very near future you’ll hear another announcement about an actual TSP integration,” Barrett said. “We need to be seamless, not another login.”
The post Clarios takes its battery subscription to European fleets appeared first on FreightWaves.
(Editor’s note: C.H. Robinson has released a lengthy statement in response to the lawsuit. Its entirety is published in different parts of this article.)
The latest legal battleground for brokers is a federal lawsuit in Texas that accuses two of the biggest 3PLs of violating the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).
The suit, filed Wednesday in the federal district court for the eastern district of Texas, accuses C.H. Robinson (NASDAQ: CHRW) and TQL of having “engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity predicated on forced labor and wire fraud from which (they) knowingly (or with reckless disregard) derive a substantial financial benefit.”
“Defendants operate, control, and influence enterprises alongside Illegal Carriers to funnel customer freight through non-compliant carriers for Defendants’ financial gain,” the lawsuit adds.
The lawsuit was brought by six carriers: Stevens Trucking, Western Flyer Express, D&M Carriers d/b/a Freymiller Trucking, IWX Motor Freight, Christenson Transportation Inc and E.O.S. Inc.
The suit brings up a separate question: how many of these suits are brokers going to face? The reality is that while the ruling on broker liability in Montgomery vs. Caribe Transport II holds the potential for legal damage to the brokerage community, the suit filed by the carriers against C.H. Robinson and TQL has nothing to do with Montgomery legally, and could have been filed even if that case went the other way at the Supreme Court.
C.H. Robinson responded with a lengthy statement.
“We reject the allegations in this civil lawsuit, its false characterization of C.H. Robinson and our business practices, and its fundamental inaccuracies about how the freight market actually works,” the company said in its opening paragraph.
Super Ego is a player in the suit
But one of the key players in the lawsuit not named as a defendant is Super Ego Trucking. The lawsuit refers several times to Illegal Carriers, with the capitalization put there by the plaintiffs’ attorneys. Super Ego is mentioned as an example of “one of the Illegal Carrier networks at issue here.”
The lawsuit notes that C.H. Robinson had dubbed Super Ego one of its “carriers of the year,” specifically for carriers with more than 1,000 trucks. That designation was handed down approximately a year ago.
There are other allegations in the suit about the choice of carriers by the 3PLs, which also was a target of C.H. Robinson’s statement.
“All the carriers we work with are authorized by the federal government, plus meet additional safety standards and higher levels of insurance than legally required,” the statement said.
Since then, Super Ego has been the subject of a highly critical report on 60 Minutes, and is the defendant in a lawsuit over its practices.
Some aspects of the lawsuit get right to an issue that brokers, especially C.H. Robinson, have been particularly concerned about: being classified as a carrier.
The decision in Montgomery vs. Caribe Transport II did open the door to brokers being able to be held negligent or liable on the same basis as carriers.
But the Stevens et. al. vs. C.H. Robinson/TQL lawsuit goes in a different direction
Broker said to be a carrier
“Despite operating as a motor carrier as defined by (federal code)–including use of their own trailers, dispatch of drivers, and assumption of care, custody and control of freight–TQL and C.H. Robinson rely on their purposes status as a ‘broker’ (lawsuit’s quote marks) to knowingly avoid registering as motor carriers with the Department of Transportation, which in turn allows them to evade regulatory obligations requiring the reporting of safety violations and crashes involving the Illegal Carriers they use to haul loads for their customers,” the lawsuit says.
C.H. Robinson already is fighting an action in a Texas court that involves not only a more than $600 million verdict in a case involving a fatal wreck, but also raises the question over whether a broker can be found to be a carrier. The jury in that case did make that finding against C.H. Robinson.
The lawsuit spells out specific lost business by the carrier plaintiffs in what could be seen as an attempt to establish standing in the courts.
For example, it says that EOS, Western Flyer, IWX and Chestenson “have been priced out” of the business moving freight to and from Graphic Packaging International’s mill in Texarkana, Texas because of “the conduct alleged in this complaint.”
The “Illegal Carriers” are also accused of engaging in behavior that has come to be known as acting as “chameleon carriers.”
“A ‘chameleon carrier’ is a fraudulent trucking company that operates by shutting down a previous entity with a poor safety record and then reopening the same operation under a new name and DOT number to obtain a clean slate with the Department of Transportation,” the lawsuit says.
Former employees check in
The lawsuit has a series of quotes that it says are from former employees of Super Ego, though their names are not revealed. Many of them are quoted as saying they “hauled loads for C.H. Robinson.”
But they also dealt with Super Ego. The comments by one of the anonymous drivers sums up the thrust of the 60 Minutes report.
“They all switch DOT numbers to evade enforcement,” the unidentified driver is quoted as saying. “And they all use addresses in multiple states to disguise the fact that they are all controlled from the same Chicago-area network. The only variation is the name on the door.”
Other charges against Super Ego mentioned in the lawsuit–even though it is not a defendant– include that drivers were regularly pushed to violate Hours of Service rules, and entreaties to join as part of a lease purchase plan that could see a driver end up with a truck at the end of it were mostly fraudulent.
An email sent to TQL’s press relations email also had not been responded to in time for publication.
In a prepared statement issued to FreightWaves, Trey Duck, a partner in the Austin law firm of Nix Patterson that is one of the firms involved in the suit, said “TQL and CH Robinson have lined their corporate pockets by cutting corners and selling the safety of American roads to the lowest bidder.”
“Although they are supposed to be gatekeepers ensuring carriers are safe and compliant, these defendants have solicited and enabled foreign-run carriers to put unqualified truck drivers on our roads, knowingly profited from forced labor and peonage, and pushed hard-working American trucking companies out of business,” according to Duck’s statement. “We are very much looking forward to getting into the discovery process and proving our claims in court.”
While the tendency of companies is to greet media inquiries like this with a “no comment,” the C.H. Robinson statement went after the charges in the lawsuit aggressively. FreightWaves has chosen to run it in its entirety along with statements posted earlier in this article.
“This lawsuit is wrong about some of the most basic elements of the industry. No freight broker sets rates. The marketplace does. ” That statement is in response to allegations about the role the plaintiffs say is carried out by the brokers in the markete.
“When demand for carriers is high and supply is low, carriers command higher rates,” the statement said. When demand is low and the supply of carriers is high, shippers command lower rates. This is reflected in the rate forecasts we publish monthly and, as a publicly traded company, we report our margins quarterly.”
“It’s also a myth that freight brokers merely find the lowest-priced carrier. The choice of a carrier for any shipment rides on a multitude of factors. Our process takes into account carrier proximity, size, equipment, certifications, and customer requirements ranging from sustainability to service levels. We look forward to defending ourselves vigorously and pursuing counterclaims supported by real facts and the law.”
More articles by John Kingston
Some judicial skepticism of non-domiciled rule in Lujan arguments
Another aspect of Montgomery: it might make human brokers more valuable
At shippers’ confab, defining a ‘fragile’ trucking market
The post New lawsuit approach: accusing C.H. Robinson, TQL of RICO violations appeared first on FreightWaves.
This article is contributed content from an independent writer. It does not represent the views or opinions of FreightWaves or any of its subsidiaries.
A trucking company hauling an Amazon Prime trailer had lost its operating authority, returned to service and accumulated safety violations before a crash injured three people on a New Mexico interstate, according to a lawsuit challenging Amazon’s carrier selection and oversight practices. New Mexico State Police cited the truck’s driver for careless driving after the collision.
The amended complaint filed against Amazon in July, alleges Amazon allowed Road Warriors Logistic to transport freight before the carrier met Amazon’s own requirement for 180 days of active operating authority. The plaintiffs contend the warning signs continued after the carrier began hauling Amazon loads, including safety violations and another crash less than a month before the collision at issue. Their central carrier selection allegation is that Amazon failed to follow the standard it had set for itself.
The collision occurred on Oct. 25, 2024, in New Mexico. According to the complaint, Harmanpreet Singh was driving a Road Warriors tractor pulling an Amazon trailer when he lost control, crossed the median and entered opposing traffic. The truck struck another commercial truck before jackknifing across both eastbound lanes, colliding with the plaintiffs’ vehicles and causing serious injuries. The New Mexico State Police report says Singh was cited for careless driving. The investigating officer wrote that the truck crossed the median “for unknown reasons.”
At the center of the carrier selection allegations is Road Warriors’ operating history. According to the complaint, the company received operating authority in May 2021, but that authority was involuntarily revoked in May 2022. The plaintiffs allege Road Warriors had its authority reinstated May 8, 2024. By July, they say, the carrier was hauling Amazon Relay freight despite having only about two months of reinstated authority. The plaintiffs cite Amazon’s public 2023 Relay requirements specifying a minimum of 180 days of active authority.
For Cassandra Gaines, a transportation attorney and expert witness specializing in broker liability and carrier selection, the allegations show what can happen when a company’s carrier decisions depart from its written requirements. “A written policy gives employees a rule to follow and gives a jury a rule to measure them against,” Gaines said. “If a carrier does not meet that rule, the question becomes who allowed the load to move and why.”
Authority history makes that question particularly important. “It helps brokers and shippers assess a carrier’s operating experience and the safety record available for review,” Gaines said. “Limited or interrupted authority may leave less recent history to evaluate, and an interruption calls for a closer look at why it occurred. That is why many companies make a minimum period of active consistent authority a firm eligibility requirement.”
The complaint also describes safety concerns that allegedly developed before the October collision. It identifies hours of service violations in July and August 2024, six vehicle maintenance violations on Sept. 13, and a Sept. 30 crash while the carrier was operating for Amazon Relay. The timeline also lists an unsafe driving violation and three maintenance violations on Sept. 30.
Another unsafe driving violation allegedly occurred Oct. 7, just 18 days before the crash involving the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs argue that the available information should have prompted Amazon to investigate the carrier’s safety fitness before continuing to entrust it with freight and equipment.
Amazon’s Relay technology is another focus of the lawsuit. The plaintiffs allege Amazon exercised extensive control over transportation through load assignments, delivery appointments, routing expectations, performance monitoring and the ability to restrict access to future freight. They also allege Amazon personnel intervened when shipments were delayed, communicating with drivers and dispatchers, changing schedules and arranging replacement equipment or drivers.
Those allegations underpin the plaintiffs’ effort to hold Amazon responsible for the conduct of Road Warriors and Singh. The allegations have not been established by the complaint itself. Defense responses were not included in the materials reviewed for this article.
Gaines developed the CAVRA Carrier Vetting Industry Standard to help companies build practical carrier selection and monitoring policies. Her advice to brokers and shippers is to examine whether their procedures work under everyday operational pressure. “Write rules your business can actually follow, train the people assigning freight and make the escalation decision before the load moves,” Gaines said. “If you repeatedly depart from your own written standard, the policy becomes evidence of what your company knew it should have done.”
Cassandra Gaines is a transportation attorney, founder and CEO of Carrier Assure and an expert witness in matters involving broker and shipper liability, carrier selection, trucking safety, and transportation risk management. She has published widely recognized carrier vetting frameworks and has spent more than a decade advising transportation companies on carrier qualification, broker liability and transportation risk. Gaines was previously recognized by Business Insider as one of its “100 People Transforming Business in North America.”
The post Interrupted authority and written vetting rules at center of New Mexico crash lawsuit appeared first on FreightWaves.
This article is contributed content from an independent writer. It does not represent the views or opinions of FreightWaves or any of its subsidiaries.
On Tuesday, President Donald Trump said he has already told his team to consider a ban on diesel exports. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said officials are studying whether a full or partial ban would work without wrecking U.S. refining. Trump said a decision would come “fast, one way or the other.”
The pressure is easy to see from a truck cab. The national average for on-highway diesel hit about $6.53 a gallon this week, a new high. That is roughly $3 more than a year ago. In some states, the pain is worse. California has been well above $8. Farm groups and trucking-heavy states say the cost is crushing harvest work, grocery distribution, and long-haul freight. Republican lawmakers from Iowa, Alaska, Tennessee, and other states have called for a pause on exports. One House bill would shut off diesel exports through early 2027. Another would trigger a ban whenever the national average hits $5 a gallon.
The idea is simple. The United States makes more diesel than it burns at home. Refiners have been sending large volumes abroad, often more than a million barrels a day, and at times closer to 1.6 million. Supporters say keeping that fuel here would rebuild inventories and knock down pump prices for truckers and farmers. Critics, including oil companies and some of Trump’s own energy officials, say the opposite could happen. If refiners lose their export market, they may cut overall runs. That could mean less gasoline as well as less diesel. Allies in Europe and Latin America that now buy U.S. diesel would also lose supply. Any ban would be the first major limit on U.S. energy exports since Congress ended the old crude-oil export ban in 2015.
That last point matters. Congress no longer gives the president a routine switch to cap petroleum-product exports. If the White House acts on its own, it would almost certainly use emergency law.
What IEEPA is and how it became a tariff machine
The main statute is the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA. Congress passed it in 1977. It lets a president act after declaring a national emergency over an “unusual and extraordinary threat” that comes, in whole or in large part, from outside the United States. Once that emergency is declared, the president can regulate or block many cross-border deals. That includes the import or export of property subject to U.S. jurisdiction. For decades, presidents used IEEPA for sanctions, asset freezes, and export controls. They did not use it to tax imports.
That changed in 2025. Early in his second term, Trump invoked IEEPA to put tariffs on Canada, Mexico, and China, citing fentanyl and border threats. He later used the same law for broad “reciprocal” tariffs tied to a declared emergency over the U.S. trade deficit. No president had used IEEPA that way before. The administration argued that the power to “regulate” importation included the power to put a price on it. Importers and business groups sued. They said tariffs are taxes, and only Congress can tax.
What the Supreme Court did
On Feb. 20, 2026, the Supreme Court agreed with the challengers. In Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, the Court ruled 6-3 that IEEPA does not authorize tariffs. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that the Constitution gives Congress the power to lay duties. IEEPA never mentions tariffs or taxes. The words “regulate … importation,” he wrote, cannot carry the weight of an open-ended tariff power. Until 2025, no president had read the law that way. Customs stopped collecting the IEEPA tariffs almost immediately. Other tariff tools, such as Section 232 national-security duties, were left in place.
The ruling was narrow in an important way. The Court blocked IEEPA as a tax statute. It did not erase IEEPA’s older use: blocking or limiting trade itself. Legal analyses since the decision have stressed that point. The statute still lets a president prohibit exports if the emergency test is met. That is the opening a diesel ban would try to walk through.
How IEEPA would be used to ban diesel exports.
A presidential diesel embargo would not look like a new tax. It would look like a prohibition. The White House would rely on a declared national emergency, either the energy emergency Trump issued in January 2025 or a new one tied to wars that have squeezed global refining, including the conflict with Iran and attacks on Russian plants. An executive order would then tell the Treasury Department and other agencies to stop, license, or sharply limit diesel exports. Companies that shipped anyway could face IEEPA penalties. The ban could be total or partial. It could last weeks or months. Trump and Bessent have already floated both options.
That path is legally cleaner than the tariff experiment, but it is not risk-free. IEEPA still requires a foreign-source threat and measures aimed at that threat. Refiners would have every reason to sue. They would argue a price-relief plan for U.S. truckers is a domestic political fix, not a response to a foreign emergency. Courts might also ask why a ban on American fuel leaving the country deals with wars overseas. Even if the order survives, the market effects would hit freight first. A short-term glut on the Gulf Coast could cut diesel prices in some regions. The East Coast, which already depends on products moving from the Gulf, could see a messier picture. If refiners cut runs, gasoline and diesel could both tighten later.
For freight operators, the legal question is less abstract than it sounds. If Washington can flip an emergency switch on diesel trade, fuel policy becomes another source of rate volatility: fast, political, and hard to plan around. The next signal will not be a floor speech. It will be an executive order citing IEEPA.
Matthew Leffler is a trucking industry expert and an adjunct professor of law at Michigan State University College of Law. He can be reached at matthew@armchairattorney.com.
The post Could Washington Ban Diesel Exports? What Truckers Need to Know appeared first on FreightWaves.
