There Is a Federal System That Resolves Moving Disputes. It Just Doesn't Apply to Your Move.

If you ship your household goods from Houston to Dakar, Senegal, and the moving company overcharges you, damages your belongings, and refuses to honor its tariff, you can file a small claim with the Federal Maritime Commission. A Small Claims Officer will review your documents. No lawyer is required. No oral testimony is needed. The officer issues a decision. Reparations are awarded. The full Commission can affirm.

If you ship your household goods from Houston to Dallas, and the exact same things happen, no equivalent federal process exists. You can file a complaint with FMCSA that creates a record but triggers no adjudication. You can hire a lawyer and go to federal court. Or you can absorb the loss.

Same consumer. Same type of dispute. Same type of harm. One has a functioning federal remedy. The other does not.

The Federal Maritime Commission's Office of Administrative Law Judges operates a small claims procedure under 46 CFR 502.301-502.321 (Subpart S). A consumer files a complaint form. The respondent is instructed to file a response. A Small Claims Officer (SCO) is designated to adjudicate the proceeding. The SCO can request additional documents, issue orders for supplemental information, and make findings of fact and law. The initial decision becomes final unless the full Commission reviews it within 30 days.

The process is document-based. No courtroom. No depositions. No discovery battles. The consumer submits their contract, bill of lading, invoices, communications, and a description of the harm. The company responds. The SCO decides.

Salomon and Jasmin Gruenberg-Reisner hired Overseas Moving Specialists for an international household goods move. They were quoted $17,575. They were billed $40,264. They filed a small claim with the FMC.

The Small Claims Officer found the mover violated Section 41102(c) of the Shipping Act and awarded $17,847 in reparations. The full Commission affirmed. No lawyer was required. The proceeding was entirely document-based.

The consumer was overcharged by 129%. The federal system identified the violation and ordered a remedy. The process worked.

Alioune Badara and Dora Mae Ndiaye hired Fleur De Lis Worldwide LLC, an ocean transportation intermediary in Humble, Texas, to ship their household goods and a vehicle from Houston to Dakar, Senegal. The company failed to provide pallets it charged for, failed to file customs documents causing demurrage charges, provided an insurance policy number that did not match the bill of lading, and directed the consumers to 'Lloyds in Dakar,' an entity that could not be located.

Small Claims Officer Theresa Dike found the respondent violated Section 41104(a)(2)(A) by providing service not in accordance with its tariff rates and rules. Reparations were awarded for the difference between what the consumers paid and the actual cost of transporting their cargo.

The respondent had been unresponsive throughout much of the proceeding, missing deadlines and blaming a transition between email systems. The SCO issued a Notice of Default. The respondent eventually complied. The system had enforcement teeth: ignore the proceeding and you default.

In 1995, when Congress abolished the Interstate Commerce Commission, it transferred household goods consumer protection to the Department of Transportation and created Section 14704 of the Motor Carrier Act. This statute provides a private right of action for consumers damaged by carrier or broker violations of federal transportation regulations. It explicitly authorizes adjudication by the Secretary of Transportation (through DOT's Office of Hearings) and by the Surface Transportation Board.

The authority is equivalent to what the FMC exercises for international moves. Congress intended consumers of domestic interstate moving services to have an accessible administrative remedy, just as consumers of international moving services do.

In 31 years, DOT has not written the implementing rules. No small claims form exists on the FMCSA website. No instructions tell consumers how to file. No Small Claims Officer has been designated. The statute is on the books. The system has never been built.

DOT's own Office of Hearings has conducted motor carrier enforcement proceedings. Federal docket records show at least four cases between 2009 and 2019: Phoenix Moving and Storage (Brooklyn, hearing in New York), Tom Ort Trucking (hearing in Madison WI), A Adams Trucking (hearing in Boston MA), and Spencer Bros. (New Hampshire). All were assigned to Administrative Law Judges with full procedural orders.

The infrastructure exists within DOT. ALJs are available. Procedural rules exist for other modes of transportation (aviation at 14 CFR 302, maritime at 46 CFR 502). The Office of Hearings conducts proceedings under the Administrative Procedure Act.

The barrier is not structural, legal, or technical. FMCSA has the statutory authority. DOT has the adjudicatory infrastructure. The FMC has demonstrated the model. The barrier is that nobody at FMCSA has written the rules to connect the statute to the infrastructure.

Based on the FMC model, a functioning domestic HHG small claims system would require:

1. A complaint form adapted from the FMC's Exhibit No. 1 to Subpart S (46 CFR 502.304(a)), modified for HHG-specific claims: overcharges, hostage loads, tariff violations, unauthorized brokering, deceptive practices.

2. Designation of a Small Claims Officer within DOT's Office of Hearings, or within the Surface Transportation Board for rate reasonableness claims.

3. A document-based proceeding with no requirement for oral testimony or physical appearance.

4. Authority for the SCO to order reparations, including the difference between the binding estimate and the amount charged, the value of goods held hostage, broker charges for moves that were never performed as described, and consequential damages.

5. Default provisions: if the carrier or broker does not respond, default judgment enters.

6. Filing fee of $350 or less (the current STB filing fee for formal complaints).

The FMC built this system and it works. The template exists. The statutory authority exists. The adjudicatory infrastructure exists. The only thing missing is the decision to build it.

A retired attorney who filed the first Section 14704 complaint in 30 years proposed exactly this to FMCSA's Office of Chief Counsel in July 2025, citing the FMC's 46 CFR 502.311-502.321 as a model. The counsel he was working with left the agency two weeks later.