Congress Gave DOT Complaint Adjudication Authority in 1995. Thirty Years Later, Two Complaints Have Been Filed. DOT Has No Rules.

In 1995, Congress abolished the Interstate Commerce Commission and split its regulatory authority between two successor agencies. The Surface Transportation Board received jurisdiction over tariffs. The Secretary of Transportation received jurisdiction over carrier and broker consumer protection, investigation, and private complaint adjudication for household goods moving.

Both agencies inherited virtually identical statutory authority. One built a functioning complaint system. The other did nothing for 30 years.

The first private complaint filed with the Secretary of Transportation under the post-ICC statutory framework arrived in March 2025. It was filed by a retired transportation attorney. It took 10 months to be referred to a hearing officer. The second arrived in June 2026. It took 4.5 months. As of November 2026, DOT still has no rules of practice, no forms, no timelines, and no published docket for HHG complaint adjudication.

The ICC Termination Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-88, 109 Stat. 183, Dec. 29, 1995) created two pathways for enforcement of household goods transportation regulations:

49 U.S.C. 14701(a): Investigations. 'The Secretary may begin an investigation' of carriers and brokers on the agency's own initiative or on third-party complaint. This transferred to the Secretary virtually identical investigative authority previously exercised by the ICC under 49 U.S.C. 11701(a) (1994 ed.).

49 U.S.C. 14701(b): Complaints. 'A person, including a governmental authority, may file with the Secretary a complaint about a violation of this part by a carrier providing, or broker for, transportation or service.' This transferred virtually identical complaint authority from the ICC's 49 U.S.C. 11701(b) (1994 ed.).

49 U.S.C. 14704: Rights and remedies. Subsection 14704(c) provides three alternative forums for persons damaged by carrier or broker regulatory violations: (1) the Surface Transportation Board, (2) the Secretary of Transportation, or (3) a court by 'civil action.' Administrative complaints must conform to 14701(b). This transferred virtually identical adjudicatory authority from the ICC's 49 U.S.C. 11705(c) (1994 ed.).

The private right of action under 14704 was confirmed by the Eighth Circuit in 1999: OOIDA v. New Prime, Inc., 192 F.3d 778, 784-85 (8th Cir. 1999), establishing that Section 14704 provides a 'private right of action for damages' from carrier violations of FMCSA economic regulations. The statute of limitations is four years. OOIDA v. Mayflower Transit, LLC, 615 F.3d 790, 792-93 (7th Cir. 2010).

The Surface Transportation Board adopted the ICC's existing Rules of Practice and amended them for the post-ICC statutory framework beginning in 1996 (61 Fed. Reg. 52711, Oct. 8, 1996), with subsequent amendments (82 Fed. Reg. 57379, Dec. 5, 2017).

The STB's complaint and investigation procedures are codified at 49 CFR Part 1111 (Complaint and Investigation Procedures) and 49 CFR Part 1130 (Informal Complaints). The STB dockets complaints immediately upon filing. Proceedings are publicly accessible. Decisions are published.

The Federal Maritime Commission, which exercises parallel complaint and adjudication authority for international household goods shipping under the Shipping Act, provides the clearest comparison of what DOT could have built.

Formal Complaints: Any person may file a formal complaint alleging violations of the Shipping Act. Complaints are sworn and verified. An Administrative Law Judge hears the case. Commission review is available. Three-year filing deadline for reparations claims.

Small Claims: For amounts under $50,000, parties can pursue informal proceedings handled by a small claims officer under 46 CFR Part 502, Subpart S. Respondents have 25 days to respond or the claim is assigned to an ALJ for formal adjudication.

Ombuds Service: The Office of Consumer Affairs and Dispute Resolution Services (CADRS) provides free ombuds assistance for cargo, household goods, and cruise disputes without formal litigation.

International HHG Complaints: A specific complaint form (FMC-33) exists for international household goods disputes, submitted to complaints@fmc.gov with supporting documentation.

Public Dockets: Proceedings are publicly searchable. The Commission maintains a log of all documents received or issued in formal proceedings. Published Law Reporters contain the Commission's most significant decisions.

Tariff Access: The FMC mandated free public access to carrier tariff publication systems effective February 1, 2024 (46 CFR 520.9(c)(2)), enforced with civil penalties.

The FMC's complaint and investigation procedures are codified at 46 CFR 502.61-502.75 (private complaints and Commission investigations) and 502.281-502.291 (non-adjudicatory investigations).

From 1996 to 2026, the Department of Transportation took no action to create rules of procedure for 49 U.S.C. 14701 and 14704 third-party investigation, complaint, and adjudication requests.

No rules of practice. No complaint forms. No filing procedures. No response deadlines. No small claims process. No ombuds service. No public docket for HHG adjudications. No published decisions.

The STB built its system in 1996. The FMC has maintained parallel procedures for decades. DOT received the same statutory authority from the same 1995 legislation and did nothing with it for 30 years.

Filed March 22, 2025. The first 14704(c)(1) adjudication complaint filed with the Secretary of Transportation since ICC termination in 1995. The complainant, a retired transportation attorney, appeared pro se.

The case arose from a September 2023 move from Bluefield, West Virginia to Bristol, Rhode Island. Eagle Moving Group, Inc. d/b/a New Start Relocation (DOT 3545015, 1325 S Congress Ave, Ste 110, Boynton Beach FL 33426) provided a binding estimate of $4,727.42 for 834 cubic feet at $3.30 per cubic foot. The estimate included a binding estimate fee of $3,100, which was 112.6% of the basic transportation cost of $2,752.20. Eagle did not provide a carrier list as required by 49 CFR 371.109 and included a pre-printed survey waiver that was not explained.

Six weeks later, Eagle sent a second estimate of $7,719.35, increasing the cubic footage to 1,254 and the BEF to $4,600 (119.6% of the new basic price of $4,108.50). The deposit increased from $2,305 to $3,805.

On moving day (October 24, 2023), carrier Home and Office arrived in a 26-foot box truck. The team leader revised the volume to 2,290 cubic feet and presented a new total of $14,299, including $1,750 for packing materials and $1,000 for a bulky item, while retaining the $4,600 BEF. The complainant protested, called Eagle at 11:32 a.m., and received no answer or callback. With a house sale closing at noon, the complainant had no choice but to sign the revised bill of lading and pay $10,494 in cash. Eagle had collected $3,805 in deposits but remitted none of it to the carrier.

Total claimed damages: $8,477.33.

FMCSA counsel acknowledged the complaint in May 2025. Notice and request for response sent to Eagle Moving on October 23, 2025 (7 months after filing). Referred to Office of Hearings on January 13, 2026 (10 months after filing). Assigned to ALJ Douglas M. Rawald.

The Eagle complaint was Part II of a two-part enforcement strategy. Part I was an STB complaint against the carrier, Home and Office Moving, which settled in December 2024 for $6,500. Part II, the Eagle complaint against the broker, settled for $3,000 plus the regulatory reform commitment. Total recovery across both forums: $9,500 on a move that escalated from a $4,727 estimate to $14,299 on moving day.

Settlement terms for Part II: Eagle paid $3,000 by ACH. Additionally, Eagle and its corporate affiliate AMS Moving, Inc. d/b/a Amerisafe Van Lines (DOT 3341650), both operated by partner Frank DeSantis, signed an 'HHG Regulatory Reform Support Commitment' committing to support 10 specific regulatory reforms, including: limits on binding estimate fees (amend 371.401(b)), volume verification rules for cubic foot shipments (new 375.23-.31), accessorial charge transparency, prohibition of attorney fee clauses except for collections, prohibition of forum selection clauses, prohibition of NDA clauses in bills of lading and tariffs, mandatory notice of the 180-day billing dispute deadline (49 USC 13710(a)(3)(B)), mandatory website publication of tariffs, mandatory website publication of carrier lists (371.109), and authority suspension for non-compliance.

Filed June 12, 2026. The second 14704(c)(1) complaint since ICC termination. Filed by the same retired transportation attorney on behalf of consumer Laura Griffin.

The case arose from a February 2026 move from Greenville, North Carolina to New Orleans, Louisiana. Menards Moving & Storage LLC (DOT 4072455, Greenacres FL) provided a binding estimate of $4,895.11 for 813 cubic feet. On moving day, Handle With Care Moving (DOT 3190967, Tucker GA), a chameleon carrier whose authority had been revoked three times, arrived as the carrier without prior disclosure. HWC invoiced $7,264.50 for 1,400 cubic feet (72% volume inflation). Menards and HWC threatened auction. Total claimed damages: $44,966.50. The full case is documented separately on Trunk.

Notice and request for response sent to Menards on September 11, 2026 (3 months after filing). Referred to Office of Hearings on October 29, 2026 (4.5 months after filing). Pending.

Processing times improved from 10 months to 4.5 months between the first and second complaints. Both remain orders of magnitude slower than the STB (immediate docketing) or FMC (25-day response deadline for small claims).

Email correspondence between the complainant and FMCSA counsel, reviewed by Trunk, documents the agency's internal processing of the first two 14704(c) complaints.

May 13, 2025 (7 weeks after filing): Joseph Solomey, Acting Deputy Chief Counsel, FMCSA, called the complainant. Solomey acknowledged the complaint and stated he was leaving FMCSA on May 30. He explained the agency was not sure what to do with the complaint or whether it had jurisdiction, and wanted to recommend a path forward before his departure. Follow-up was handed to Chief Counsel Jesse Elison.

October 6, 2025 (6.5 months after filing): The complainant emailed Jedd M. Miloud, Senior Attorney Advisor in FMCSA's Office of Chief Counsel (Denver office), proposing that FMCSA adopt the FMC's small claims procedures (46 CFR 502.301-305 and 502.311-321, filing fee $176) as a model for 14704(c) complaint adjudication. The complainant also cited the CFTC ($50-$200 filing fees), STB ($350), USDA (no fee), and DOT's own Office of Aviation Consumer Protection (no fee, informal adjudication) as comparable federal agency complaint systems. The complainant offered to help draft procedural regulations.

October 14, 2025: Miloud called back and stated FMCSA was 'planning to notify the broker and allow an opportunity to respond.'

October 22, 2025: Miloud emailed: 'FMCSA is planning to notify the broker... Depending on the response, if any, FMCSA may refer the matter to the Office of Hearings.' The complainant noted the word 'may' was 'a bit more equivocal than I recall.'

October 23, 2025 (7 months after filing): Notice sent to Eagle Moving requesting a response.

January 13, 2026 (10 months after filing): Referred to Office of Hearings.

For the Griffin case, the processing was faster but followed the same pattern. Miloud sent the notice to Menards on September 11, 2026 (3 months after filing). On September 24, he stated: 'I'm planning to refer the case to the USDOT Office of Hearings.' On October 7: 'Planning for this month.' On October 20, the complainant asked: 'any transmit to the Office of Hearings plan?' On October 29: 'Filed today.'

Jedd M. Miloud, Senior Attorney Advisor in FMCSA's Denver office, has been the agency's primary contact for 14704(c) complaint procedure since being assigned the first case in late 2025. He processed both referrals. There is no indication that any other FMCSA staff or office is involved in 14704(c) complaint handling.

In both cases, FMCSA's filings contain a contradiction that illuminates the agency's approach to HHG complaint adjudication.

In its notices to respondent brokers (October 23, 2025 and September 11, 2026), FMCSA counsel stated: 'Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 14701(a), FMCSA is authorized to investigate complaints that it receives regarding regulated entities.' The letters invited respondents to 'send evidence and argument demonstrating compliance with federal statutes and regulations.' The language implied that FMCSA would investigate.

In its subsequent referrals to the Office of Hearings (January 13, 2026 and October 29, 2026), FMCSA Chief Counsel stated: 'FMCSA has not investigated the allegations contained in the complaint' and 'does not take a position on the validity of the allegations.'

The agency told the brokers it was authorized to investigate. It told the adjudicator it did not investigate. Both are official FMCSA filings in the same proceedings.

The notices to respondent brokers also contain the first public acknowledgment by DOT or FMCSA since ICC termination in 1995 that Section 14704 complaint adjudication is available to persons damaged by regulatory violations of brokers and carriers. For 30 years, the existence of this remedy was effectively hidden from consumers.

A consumer defrauded by a household goods broker has three statutory options under 49 U.S.C. 14704(c):

1. File with the STB. The STB has rules, procedures, and a functioning docket. However, the STB's jurisdiction is limited to tariff matters. Most consumer complaints about broker fraud involve violations of 49 CFR Part 371 (broker regulations) and Part 375 (carrier regulations), which fall under DOT's jurisdiction.

2. File with the Secretary of Transportation (DOT/FMCSA). DOT has no rules, no procedures, no forms, no timelines, and no docket. Two complaints have been processed in 30 years. Processing time: 4.5 to 10 months for referral alone, before adjudication begins.

3. File a civil lawsuit. This requires an attorney, filing fees, and jurisdiction in the correct venue. Most consumers who lose $5,000 to $15,000 in a moving scam cannot justify the cost of federal litigation.

The practical effect is that Option 2, the administrative complaint designed to provide an accessible alternative to federal court for ordinary consumers, does not function. The agency has not built the system Congress authorized in 1995. The STB alternative is jurisdictionally limited. The court alternative is economically impractical for most consumers. The result is that most consumers damaged by broker fraud have no viable remedy.

This article will be updated as additional 14704(c) complaints are filed and as the pending Griffin v. Menards case progresses.