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The Carmack Amendment is a provision of federal law, originally enacted in 1906 as an amendment to the Interstate Commerce Act, that establishes a uniform national framework for carrier liability in interstate shipments.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.

Under federal regulations, Full Value Protection (FVP) is the default liability level for interstate household goods moves (49 CFR 375.201). This is the protection consumers start with unless they actively waive it. To drop to the lower Released Value level ($0.60 per pound per article), the consumer must sign a written waiver opting out of FVP (49 CFR 375.203).

This distinction matters. Consumers do not need to 'elect' FVP. They already have it. What happens in practice is that carriers and brokers present the waiver as a routine part of the paperwork, or pressure consumers to sign it without explaining what they are giving up. The consumer signs away their default protection without making an informed choice.

At $0.60 per pound, the math is catastrophic. 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. 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.

The practical problem is not that FVP is unavailable. It is the default. The problem is that carriers and brokers routinely solicit waivers without providing the information consumers need to make an informed choice. The waiver process, which should be a deliberate consumer decision, has become a box to check during a stack of moving-day paperwork.

Federal case law supports consumers who challenge uninformed waivers. In AGCS Marine Insurance Co. v. Chillicothe Metal Co., 651 F. Supp. 3d 954, 961 (C.D. Ill. 2023), the court held that an effective waiver requires 'both reasonable notice of the liability limitation and the opportunity to obtain information necessary to making a deliberate and well-informed choice.' A consumer signature on a waiver line is not sufficient if the consumer can demonstrate they lacked the information needed to make a meaningful choice.

Trunk's review of broker estimates filed in court proceedings and submitted by consumers reveals three distinct patterns of FVP abuse. Some brokers set the FVP valuation charge to $0.00 at every deductible level, making FVP and released value cost exactly the same, which renders any waiver signature meaningless since no informed consumer would waive free protection. Others price FVP at 20% of cargo value rather than the industry standard 1-2% (68 FR 35064, 35103, June 11, 2003: 'The approximate cost for FVP is $8.50 for each $1,000 of declared value'), making the protection economically impossible to select. Both approaches achieve the same result: the consumer ends up at $0.60 per pound without understanding what they lost.

Note: neither FVP nor released value protection is insurance. It is an expression of liability assumed by the carrier. If the carrier is insolvent or refuses to pay, the consumer's insurance recourse is limited to the $5,000 BMC-34 cargo bond required by FMCSA, which may be diluted by multiple claimants.

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.

A critical limitation: the Carmack Amendment applies only to carriers, the entities that physically transport goods. It does not apply to brokers, the entities that arrange transportation but own no trucks.

This distinction matters because many consumers hire what they believe is a moving company but is actually a broker. The broker provides the estimate, collects the deposit, and is the consumer's only point of contact. When goods are damaged, lost, or held hostage, the consumer discovers that their Carmack claim is against the carrier that performed the move, not the broker that sold it. The carrier may be a company the consumer never chose, never spoke to, and cannot locate.

Broker liability is governed by a separate legal framework. The Supreme Court's unanimous 2026 decision in Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II addressed whether state negligence claims against brokers are preempted by the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act (F4A). The Court ruled they are not, opening the door for consumers to sue brokers in state court for negligent carrier selection. But that is a state negligence claim, not a Carmack claim. Carmack remains carrier-only.

The practical result: consumers who hire brokers (often unknowingly) cannot use Carmack against the broker and must identify and pursue the carrier separately. The broker model adds a liability gap between the consumer and the entity responsible for their goods.

Correction: An earlier version of this article incorrectly described the Montgomery case as a Carmack decision. Montgomery addressed F4A preemption of state law broker negligence claims, not Carmack carrier liability. Carmack has never applied to brokers.

Full Value Protection is not an upgrade. It is your starting position under federal law (49 CFR 375.201). Under FVP, the carrier is liable for the replacement value of lost or damaged items, or the cost of repair, whichever is less.

FVP may cost an additional 1% to 3% of the declared value of your shipment. For a shipment declared at $50,000 (a typical value for a 3-bedroom home), that is $500 to $1,500 added to the moving price. Under FVP, a $1,500 television is covered for $1,500 (replacement value), not $30. A $15,000 piano is covered for $15,000, not $300.

FVP has limitations. Carriers can impose deductibles. 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 may be limited.

For consumers, the recommendation is simple: do not sign the Released Value waiver. You already have Full Value Protection by default. If a carrier or broker asks you to waive FVP, ask them to explain in writing exactly what you are giving up. If they cannot or will not explain it, that tells you what you need to know about how they do business. Document all items of extraordinary value on the inventory and photograph everything before the move.

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. In practice, most consumers default to Released Value protection rather than electing FVP. Among those who do file FVP claims, carriers frequently deny or reduce claims 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.