H.R. 880: The Household Goods Shipping Consumer Protection Act, Explained

H.R. 880, the Household Goods Shipping Consumer Protection Act, was introduced by Representatives Eleanor Holmes Norton and Mike Ezell. The bill addresses two core problems. Section 2 would restore FMCSA's authority to assess civil penalties for household goods violations, reversing the 2019 Riojas decision that stripped the agency of this enforcement tool. Before Riojas, FMCSA could impose financial penalties on carriers and brokers for consumer fraud. After Riojas, the agency's enforcement options were reduced to warning letters and license revocation, tools it rarely uses. Section 4 would expand state enforcement of federal HHG shipping consumer protection rules under 49 USC 14710-14711, allowing state attorneys general to retain fines and penalties assessed against brokers and carriers for violations of HHG regulations.

The Riojas decision created an enforcement vacuum that persists today. National closed carrier enforcement cases dropped from 3,794 in FY 2024 to 1,312 in FY 2025, a 65% decline. Broker enforcement went to zero in FY 2025 and remains at zero. Without civil penalty authority, FMCSA has no financial deterrent against fraud. Carriers and brokers can overcharge consumers, hold goods hostage, and operate under false pretenses with no risk of monetary sanctions from the federal regulator. Restoring this authority would not solve the problem alone, but it would give the agency a tool it currently lacks entirely.

H.R. 880 is a beginning, not a comprehensive solution. The bill does not address NCCDB transparency (consumers cannot research complaint histories against movers). It does not require carrier tariffs to be published online (water carriers and international shippers must publish tariffs online for free, but HHG carriers do not). It does not increase the inadequate $5,000 carrier insurance minimum for household goods inventory. It does not address volume fraud (no regulatory controls exist for cubic footage measurements, unlike weight-based shipments which have federal verification rules). It does not fix the 180-day billing dispute deadline that FMCSA never mentions on its website. And it does not address the arbitration neutrality problem, where carriers select 'mover-friendly' arbitration providers. These issues require either amendments to the bill, separate legislation, or FMCSA rulemaking.

Section 4's expansion of state enforcement authority is welcome but contains a structural flaw. Current law under 49 USC 14711(b)(4) imposes up to a 60-day delay for notice to the federal agency before a state attorney general can file an enforcement action, while 14710 allows a state agency to file an action with simultaneous notice to the federal agency. The 60-day delay should be deleted or reduced to 7 days. Sixty days is too long to wait when carriers and brokers routinely dissolve and reincorporate to evade enforcement. By the time a state AG can act, the entity may no longer exist. The bill should also identify participating state agencies and contacts, which FMCSA's website currently does not do despite eleven states having agreed to participate in the Household Goods State Enforcement Partnership Program.

H.R. 880 is pending in the House of Representatives. A parallel Senate bill, S. 337, is co-sponsored by Senator Deb Fischer and addresses similar enforcement authority issues. The bill has bipartisan support (Norton is a Democrat, Ezell is a Republican). The Senate Transportation Committee held a hearing on moving fraud in February 2025 ('Grand Theft Cargo'), the first congressional attention to the issue since the 2012 hearings that examined Aldo DiSorbo and Colonial Van Lines. Whether the bill advances in the current session depends on committee action and floor scheduling. Consumers can support the bill by contacting their congressional representatives and referencing the documented enforcement failures, complaint statistics, and consumer harm data compiled by Trunk, USMPO, and other independent platforms.