Your Mover Defrauded You. Where Do You File? The Answer Depends on What Went Wrong.
Property damage goes to arbitration or court under the Carmack Amendment. Regulatory violations go to DOT or court under 49 U.S.C. 14704. Broker fraud goes to court under Montgomery. Each remedy has different deadlines, different forums, and different limitations. Most consumers do not know any of them exist.
A consumer defrauded by a moving company has multiple potential remedies. But each remedy applies only to specific types of harm, in specific forums, with specific deadlines. Filing the wrong claim in the wrong forum wastes time and may forfeit the right to file correctly.
This guide maps the five categories of harm to the forums and legal authorities that apply to each. It does not constitute legal advice. Consumers with significant losses should consult an attorney.
Category 1: Property Damage and Loss (Carrier Liability)
What it covers: Items damaged, destroyed, lost, or stolen during the move by the carrier that physically transported the goods.
Governing law: The Carmack Amendment, 49 U.S.C. 14706. This federal statute makes interstate carriers strictly liable for loss or damage to goods they transport. The carrier's liability depends on the valuation option the consumer selected: Full Value Protection (replacement value) or Released Value ($0.60 per pound per article).
Forum: Carrier arbitration (required to be offered by carriers under 49 U.S.C. 14708 and 49 CFR 375.211) or federal/state court.
NOT available through: DOT Office of Hearings. Agency adjudication under 49 U.S.C. 14704 is limited to regulatory violations. Property damage and loss claims under the Carmack Amendment are explicitly excluded from DOT administrative adjudication.
Deadlines: The consumer must file a written claim with the carrier within 9 months of delivery (49 U.S.C. 14706(e)). If the carrier denies the claim, the consumer has 2 years from the denial to file suit.
Key limitation: The Carmack Amendment applies only to carriers, not to brokers. A broker that arranged the move but did not physically transport the goods is not liable under Carmack. Louis M. Marson Jr., Inc. v. Alliance Shippers, 438 F. Supp. 3d 326 (ED Pa. 2020).
Practical reality: Many carriers offer $92 settlements conditioned on NDAs and waivers of all claims. The carrier's claims adjuster (often CSI Moving Claims) works for the carrier, not the consumer. Carrier insurance policies may exclude theft and require carrier cooperation that the carrier refuses to provide.
See also: trunk.lorea.ai/moving-damage-claim
Category 2: Regulatory Violations by Broker or Carrier (Administrative Adjudication)
What it covers: Violations of federal HHG transportation regulations, including: failure to provide a carrier list (49 CFR 371.109), failure to disclose broker status (49 CFR 371.7), failure to provide a bill of lading (49 CFR 375.505), failure to have written carrier agreements before providing estimates (49 CFR 371.115), predatory binding estimate fees, uninformed survey waivers, volume inflation, and other violations of 49 U.S.C. Subtitle IV Part B and regulations under 49 CFR Parts 365, 371, 375, and 1310.
Governing law: 49 U.S.C. 14704(a)(2) (damages from regulatory violations) and 14704(c)(1) (election of forum).
Forum: Three options under 14704(c)(1): (1) the Secretary of Transportation (DOT Office of Hearings), (2) the Surface Transportation Board, or (3) a federal or state court by civil action.
Deadline: Four years from the violation. OOIDA v. Mayflower Transit, LLC, 615 F.3d 790 (7th Cir. 2010).
Practical reality: The DOT Office of Hearings has processed exactly two 14704(c) complaints since 1995. There are no rules of practice, no forms, no timelines, and no published docket. Processing time: 4.5 to 10 months for referral alone. The STB has functioning complaint procedures but its jurisdiction is primarily over tariff matters. Federal court requires an attorney and filing fees.
Key distinction: Regulatory violation damages are separate from Carmack Amendment property loss claims. A consumer can pursue both: Carmack against the carrier for damaged goods, and 14704 against the broker for regulatory violations that caused the consumer to be matched with that carrier.
See also: trunk.lorea.ai/insights/dot-30-year-complaint-adjudication-gap
Category 3: Broker Negligent Carrier Selection (Court)
What it covers: A broker's failure to exercise reasonable care in selecting a carrier, resulting in harm to the consumer. This applies when a broker dispatches to a carrier with a known history of revocations, complaints, fraud, or safety violations.
Governing law: State common law negligence, as established by the U.S. Supreme Court in Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC (2026). The Court held that federal preemption does not shield brokers from state-law negligence claims for their carrier selection decisions.
Forum: State or federal court.
Deadline: Varies by state statute of limitations for negligence (typically 2-3 years).
Practical reality: Montgomery opened a new avenue for consumers, but most HHG consumers cannot afford to litigate against a broker. The C.H. Robinson verdict ($604 million in the freight context) demonstrated the potential liability, but no HHG-specific negligent selection case has produced a comparable result.
Key distinction: This claim targets the broker's selection of the carrier, not the carrier's handling of goods. It is available even when the Carmack Amendment shields the carrier, because the claim is against the broker for its own negligence.
See also: trunk.lorea.ai/insights/broker-carrier-complaint-trends
Category 4: Overcharges and Billing Disputes (Carrier or Broker)
What it covers: Charges that exceed the binding estimate, unauthorized fees, charges not in the carrier's tariff, or billing disputes where the consumer believes they were overcharged.
Governing law: 49 U.S.C. 13710(a)(3)(B) (billing dispute deadline). At delivery, the carrier may collect no more than 110% of a non-binding estimate (49 U.S.C. 13707(b)(3)(A)). For binding estimates, the carrier may not collect more than the estimate amount (49 CFR 375.407(a)) unless a revised estimate was signed before loading.
Forum: Written dispute to carrier, then STB (tariff rate matters), DOT Office of Hearings (regulatory violations), or court.
Deadline: 180 days from receipt of the bill of lading to 'contest' (dispute) overcharges. 49 U.S.C. 13710(a)(3)(B). This deadline is rarely disclosed to consumers. Few bills of lading mention it. FMCSA's consumer guidance does not mention it.
Practical reality: Most consumers do not know the 180-day deadline exists. The HHG Regulatory Reform Support Commitment signed in Vetne v. Eagle Moving proposed requiring notice of this deadline on all bills of lading.
See also: trunk.lorea.ai/insights/binding-estimate-fee-scam
Category 5: Hostage Loads (Criminal and Civil)
What it covers: A carrier or broker that refuses to deliver goods unless the consumer pays charges exceeding the estimate, or that threatens to auction or destroy goods.
Governing law: 49 U.S.C. 14915 (federal prohibition on holding household goods hostage). Violation is subject to a $25,000 minimum civil penalty per instance for household goods. State criminal statutes (theft, extortion, larceny) may also apply.
Forum: FMCSA enforcement (civil penalty), local police (criminal complaint), state attorney general (consumer protection), or court.
Deadline: No specific federal deadline for reporting. State criminal statutes of limitations vary.
Practical reality: FMCSA closed zero HHG carrier enforcement cases in FY 2026 despite hostage loads being the fastest-growing complaint category. Local police frequently decline to intervene, classifying hostage loads as 'civil matters.' The most effective immediate consumer action is a credit card chargeback, if the consumer paid by credit card.
See also: trunk.lorea.ai/mover-holding-stuff-hostage
The Two-Forum Strategy
A consumer can pursue multiple remedies simultaneously for different types of harm from the same move.
The first documented example: Vetne v. Eagle Moving Group. The consumer filed an STB complaint against the carrier (Home and Office Moving) for tariff-related overcharges, which settled for $6,500 in December 2024. The consumer then filed a DOT 14704(c) complaint against the broker (Eagle Moving Group) for regulatory violations, which settled for $3,000 plus a regulatory reform commitment in March 2026. Total recovery: $9,500 on a move that escalated from $4,727 to $14,299.
This two-forum strategy is a template: Carmack against the carrier for property damage, plus 14704 against the broker for regulatory violations, plus a negligent selection claim against the broker under Montgomery. Each targets a different entity and a different type of harm.
See also: trunk.lorea.ai/insights/dot-30-year-complaint-adjudication-gap
Data
Consumer Remedies by Type of Harm
| Type of Harm | Legal Authority | Forum | Deadline | Against |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Property damage/loss | Carmack Amendment (49 USC 14706) | Arbitration or court | 9 months to file claim, 2 years to sue | Carrier only |
| Regulatory violations | 49 USC 14704(c)(1) | DOT Office of Hearings, STB, or court | 4 years | Broker or carrier |
| Negligent carrier selection | State common law (Montgomery) | State or federal court | 2-3 years (varies by state) | Broker only |
| Overcharges/billing disputes | 49 USC 13710(a)(3)(B) | Written dispute, then STB or court | 180 days from BOL receipt | Carrier or broker |
| Hostage loads | 49 USC 14915 + state criminal law | FMCSA, police, AG, or court | No federal deadline | Carrier or broker |
| Credit card fraud | Fair Credit Billing Act | Bank chargeback | 60-120 days from charge | Any party paid by card |
Source:
Sources: 49 U.S.C. 14706 (Carmack Amendment, carrier liability for loss and damage).49 U.S.C. 14704 (rights and remedies, private right of action for regulatory violations).49 U.S.C. 14708, 49 CFR 375.211 (carrier arbitration requirement).49 U.S.C. 13710(a)(3)(B) (180-day billing dispute deadline).49 U.S.C. 14915 (hostage loads, $25,000 minimum penalty).Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC, 2026 WL 1336188 (U.S. Supreme Court, broker negligent selection).OOIDA v. Mayflower Transit, LLC, 615 F.3d 790 (7th Cir. 2010) (4-year statute of limitations for 14704).Louis M. Marson Jr., Inc. v. Alliance Shippers, 438 F. Supp. 3d 326 (ED Pa. 2020) (Carmack applies to carriers, not brokers).Vetne v. Eagle Moving Group, FMCSA-2026-0069 (two-forum recovery strategy).