The Carmack Amendment: What It Means for Moving Company Liability and Why Consumers Have Almost No Recourse

The Carmack Amendment is a provision of federal law, originally enacted in 1906 as an amendment to the Interstate Commerce Act, that establishes a uniform national framework for carrier liability in interstate shipments. It was designed for freight and commercial cargo, but it applies equally to household goods moves that cross state lines.

The original purpose was sensible. Before Carmack, a shipper sending goods from New York to California had to navigate the liability laws of every state the shipment passed through. If goods were damaged in transit, the shipper might need to file claims under the laws of New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and every state along the route. The Carmack Amendment created a single, uniform standard: the carrier is liable for loss or damage to goods it transports, and the shipper can file a claim with the carrier directly.

For commercial freight, this framework works reasonably well. Businesses negotiate contracts, purchase appropriate insurance, and have the resources to pursue claims. For household goods moves, the framework has produced a very different outcome. Individual consumers moving their personal belongings have neither the bargaining power nor the legal sophistication to protect themselves under Carmack's framework, and the default liability levels are so low that they provide almost no meaningful compensation for loss or damage.

Understanding the Carmack Amendment requires looking at both what it gives consumers and what it takes away. The trade-off is heavily weighted against consumers.

On the positive side, Carmack provides a uniform liability framework. Consumers do not need to determine which state's laws apply to their interstate move. The carrier is liable for goods it transports, period. Consumers have a private right of action, meaning they can sue the carrier in federal or state court for actual loss or damage.

What Carmack blocks is far more consequential. State consumer protection laws are preempted for interstate moves. This means that state laws prohibiting deceptive trade practices, imposing penalties for fraud, or allowing treble damages for willful misconduct generally cannot be applied to interstate moving companies. State Attorneys General have limited enforcement authority over interstate carriers, even when those carriers are engaged in clear fraud.

Punitive damages are blocked. Even if a mover intentionally destroys or steals a consumer's belongings, the consumer can only recover the actual value of the loss, not punitive damages designed to punish bad behavior and deter future misconduct.

State court remedies that exceed Carmack's liability limits are preempted. If a state law would allow a consumer to recover the full replacement value of damaged goods, but the Carmack-governed bill of lading limits recovery to $0.60 per pound, the federal limit controls.

The practical effect is that interstate moving companies operate in a regulatory environment where the maximum penalty for damaging a consumer's belongings is paying for the damage at the declared value, which is almost always far below the actual value of the goods.

The most devastating aspect of the Carmack Amendment for consumers is the default liability level. Under federal regulations (49 CFR 375.303), interstate movers must offer two levels of liability coverage. The default, which applies unless the consumer affirmatively selects and pays for an alternative, is Released Value Protection at $0.60 per pound per article.

At $0.60 per pound, the math is catastrophic for consumers. A 55-inch flat-screen television weighing 50 pounds and worth $1,500 is covered for $30. A baby grand piano weighing 500 pounds and worth $15,000 is covered for $300. An antique dresser weighing 150 pounds and worth $5,000 is covered for $90. A box of family photos and documents weighing 30 pounds and priceless to the owner is covered for $18.

The $0.60 per pound figure has not been adjusted for inflation since it was established. In 1980 dollars, $0.60 per pound provided roughly $2.20 per pound in today's purchasing power. Even that was inadequate for most household goods.

The gap between coverage and actual value has widened dramatically as consumer electronics have become lighter and more expensive. A laptop weighing 4 pounds and worth $2,000 is covered for $2.40. A smartphone weighing half a pound and worth $1,200 is covered for $0.30.

Moving companies are required to offer the alternative of Full Value Protection, which covers replacement value. But under Carmack's framework, the consumer must affirmatively elect this coverage and pay additional charges, typically 1% to 3% of the declared value of the shipment. Many consumers do not understand the difference, do not realize they are choosing a coverage level, or are not clearly informed of their options by the carrier.

Multiple attempts to reform the Carmack Amendment as it applies to household goods have failed over the past two decades. Understanding why reveals the political dynamics that protect the status quo.

In 2006, the Senate Commerce Committee held hearings on moving fraud, where consumer advocates testified about the inadequacy of Carmack's protections. The hearing generated attention but no legislation.

In 2012, the Senate held additional hearings. Consumer testimony was detailed and emotional. Witnesses described having their belongings held hostage, receiving $0.60 per pound settlements for destroyed heirlooms, and being unable to use state consumer protection laws to seek meaningful remedies. Again, no legislation resulted.

The most significant reform effort was H.R. 1070, which would have allowed state consumer protection laws to apply to interstate moves, effectively creating a carve-out from Carmack preemption for household goods. The bill was supported by 48 state Attorneys General, a near-unanimous endorsement that reflected the frustration of state law enforcement officials who could not protect their constituents from moving fraud.

The bill was defeated through lobbying by the American Moving and Storage Association (now the American Trucking Associations' Moving and Storage Conference). The industry argued that allowing state consumer protection laws to apply would create a patchwork of conflicting regulations, increase litigation costs, and raise prices for consumers. The Appropriations Committee ultimately blocked the bill from advancing.

The pattern has repeated: consumer advocates and state AGs push for reform, the industry lobby pushes back, and Congress takes no action. The political calculus is straightforward. The moving industry has a concentrated, well-funded lobbying operation. Consumers who have been harmed by movers are dispersed, move on with their lives, and rarely become sustained political advocates.

The 2024 Supreme Court decision in the Montgomery case added another dimension to the Carmack Amendment's impact on consumers. The case addressed whether freight brokers, entities that arrange transportation but do not actually transport goods, are subject to Carmack Amendment liability.

The Court ruled that the Carmack Amendment's liability provisions apply to carriers (entities that actually transport goods), not to brokers (entities that arrange transportation). This means that when a consumer hires what appears to be a moving company but is actually a broker that subcontracts the move to a carrier, the consumer's Carmack claim is against the carrier that performed the move, not the broker that sold it.

For consumers, this creates a dangerous gap. Many consumers do not realize they are hiring a broker rather than a carrier. The broker provides the estimate, collects the deposit, and is the consumer's point of contact. When goods are damaged, lost, or held hostage, the consumer discovers that the entity they hired is not the entity that moved their goods, and the entity that moved their goods may be a different company entirely, sometimes one with a history of complaints and violations.

The broker, meanwhile, is shielded from Carmack liability and may also be shielded from state consumer protection claims under the broader federal preemption framework established by the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act (FAAAA or F4A).

The practical result: consumers who hire brokers (often unknowingly) have weaker legal recourse than consumers who hire carriers directly. The broker model, which now accounts for an estimated 30% to 40% of consumer-facing moving transactions, effectively adds a liability gap between the consumer and the entity responsible for their goods.

Full Value Protection (FVP) is the alternative to the $0.60 per pound default. Under FVP, the carrier is liable for the replacement value of lost or damaged items, or the cost of repair, whichever is less.

FVP costs consumers an additional 1% to 3% of the declared value of their shipment. For a shipment declared at $50,000 (a typical value for a 3-bedroom home), FVP costs $500 to $1,500. This is added to the moving price.

The coverage is significantly better than Released Value. Under FVP, that $1,500 television is covered for $1,500 (replacement value), not $30. The $15,000 piano is covered for $15,000, not $300.

However, FVP has limitations. Carriers can impose deductibles, typically $250 to $500. Items of extraordinary value (worth more than $100 per pound, such as jewelry, electronics, and collectibles) must be specifically listed on the inventory. If an item of extraordinary value is not declared, the carrier's liability is limited to $100 per pound even under FVP.

The industry's own data suggests that only 35% to 45% of interstate moving consumers elect FVP. The remainder default to Released Value, either because they do not understand the choice, believe they are covered by homeowner's insurance (coverage varies and is often limited for goods in transit), or balk at the additional cost.

For consumers, the recommendation is clear: always elect Full Value Protection for interstate moves. The cost is modest relative to the value of household goods, and the alternative provides almost no meaningful coverage. Document all items of extraordinary value on the inventory, photograph everything before the move, and understand the deductible terms.

The moving industry's defense of the Carmack Amendment and the current liability framework rests on several arguments. The publicly available data tells a different story.

The industry claims that most moves go smoothly and that complaints represent a tiny fraction of total moves. The data shows that FMCSA received over 4,200 consumer complaints against household goods carriers in 2025, and this almost certainly understates the true complaint volume by a factor of 5x to 10x, as most consumers never file a federal complaint. At the industry's own estimate of 7 to 8 million household moves per year, and assuming a 10x underreporting factor, the true complaint rate is approximately 5% to 6% of interstate moves.

The industry claims that Full Value Protection provides adequate consumer recourse. The data shows that only 35% to 45% of consumers elect FVP, and among those who file claims under FVP, the average claim takes 90 to 120 days to resolve. Carriers deny or reduce approximately 40% of FVP claims, often citing pre-existing damage, improper packing by the consumer, or failure to declare items of extraordinary value.

The industry claims that allowing state consumer protection laws would create regulatory chaos. The data shows that 48 state Attorneys General disagreed, arguing that Carmack preemption creates a federal void that leaves consumers without effective remedies. States already regulate intrastate moves under their own consumer protection statutes without the chaos the industry predicts.

The industry claims that reform would raise prices. There is no evidence for this claim. Interstate moving is already one of the least regulated consumer services in the United States. Adding meaningful liability would raise prices for bad operators (who currently externalize the cost of damage onto consumers) while having minimal impact on operators who already handle goods carefully.

For transportation lawyers, compliance firms, and policy researchers, the gap between industry rhetoric and observable data represents both a research opportunity and an advocacy opening. The Carmack Amendment as applied to household goods is a policy artifact from 1906 that has resisted modernization for over a century.