The Capitol LedgerEvery move in Congress, on the record
HomeBillsRecordsLedger AI

The Capitol Ledger

Built from the Congressional Record and Congress.gov. Every summary links to its source.

AboutFAQFeedbackTerms of ServicePrivacy Policy
Follow us onlineInstagram

Summaries are AI-generated from primary sources. Verify anything important against the original record.

The Capitol Ledger

Built from the Congressional Record and Congress.gov. Every summary links to its source.

The projectAboutFAQFeedback
LegalTerms of ServicePrivacy Policy
Follow us onlineInstagram

Summaries are AI-generated from primary sources. Verify anything important against the original record.

All bills
H.R. 8799·119th Congress·Introduced May 13, 2026

Stop Scamming Truckers Act

IntroducedTransportation and Public WorksSubstantive
View bill text
Sponsor
Rep. Perez, Marie Gluesenkamp [D-WA-3]
Committees
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee (primary)
Last action
May 13, 2026

Bottom line

The Stop Scamming Truckers Act aims to protect motor carriers, especially small businesses and owner-operators, from deceptive practices by private companies offering USDOT number services through mandatory disclosures and a new private right of action.

What it actually does

This bill establishes new requirements for private entities that communicate with motor carriers about United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) numbers. It mandates clear disclosures stating that the communication is from a private company and not a federal agency, and prohibits misleading representations of government affiliation or implying that payment to the private entity is required for USDOT number compliance. It also creates a private right of action, allowing affected individuals to sue for damages and injunctive relief.

Proponents argue

Supporters argue that this bill is essential to protect motor carriers, particularly small businesses and owner-operators, from predatory practices by private entities that mislead them into believing they are interacting with a federal agency. They contend it will reduce unnecessary costs imposed on carriers, enhance transparency in a critical regulatory area, and provide a vital enforcement mechanism for victims of deception.

Opponents contend

Opponents might argue that the bill imposes undue regulatory burdens and potential litigation risks on legitimate private businesses that offer valuable services to motor carriers. They may contend that existing consumer protection laws are sufficient to address deceptive practices and that the relaxed burden of proof for the private right of action could lead to an increase in frivolous lawsuits.

The bill is very short and clearly written, making it highly accessible for a reader to evaluate its provisions quickly and understand its core intent.

Section 2(b)(1)-(2)

Mandatory Disclosure for USDOT Communications

prominently featuredstraightforward

This provision requires any private entity transmitting a communication about USDOT numbers (registration, renewal, updating, or compliance) to include a clear, legible disclosure. This disclosure must explicitly state that the communication is from a private company and not from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), the Department of Transportation (DOT), or any other federal government agency, nor is it affiliated with the U.S. Government. The disclosure must appear prominently on the first page of printed communications or without scrolling in electronic communications, and must not be obscured.

GroupImpactMechanismScale
GroupPrivate entities offering USDOT number servicesImpactIncreased compliance burden to ensure all communications meet the specified disclosure requirements, potentially requiring redesign of existing materials.MechanismDirect mandate on communication content and placement.ScaleBroad, affecting all private entities in this sector.
GroupMotor carriers (especially small businesses and owner-operators)ImpactReduced risk of deception and confusion, leading to clearer understanding of who is providing services and potentially saving them from unnecessary fees.MechanismImproved transparency in communications.ScaleBeneficial to all motor carriers receiving such communications.

Supporters argue

Supporters argue that this mandatory disclosure directly addresses the core problem of misleading communications, ensuring that motor carriers can easily distinguish between official government correspondence and solicitations from private companies. This clarity is crucial for preventing scams and protecting carriers from incurring unnecessary costs.

Critics contend

Some private entities might argue that while the intent is good, the specific requirements for font size, placement, and wording could be overly prescriptive, adding an unnecessary administrative burden and cost to legitimate businesses without significantly improving consumer protection beyond what existing regulations already provide.

Tradeoffs

This provision balances the need for clear consumer protection against the potential for increased compliance costs and design constraints for private businesses. It aims to prevent confusion without stifling legitimate private services.

Section 2(b)(3)

Prohibition on Misleading Representations

prominently featuredstraightforward

This section prohibits covered entities from using any name, seal, logo, insignia, or trade dress that could reasonably imply an affiliation with the FMCSA or the Department of Transportation. Furthermore, it explicitly forbids private entities from stating or implying that payment to their company is a requirement to obtain or maintain a USDOT number, thereby clarifying that the government itself issues these numbers without requiring payment to a third party.

Section 2(c)

Establishment of Private Right of Action

prominently featuredmoderately complex

This provision creates a new civil cause of action, allowing any person who receives a USDOT number communication that violates the Act to bring a lawsuit in an appropriate U.S. district court. Courts are authorized to award actual damages (including any amounts paid to the covered entity), statutory damages ranging from $500 to $5,000 per violation per communication, injunctive or declaratory relief, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. Notably, a plaintiff is not required to prove actual reliance, intent to deceive, or actual confusion to prevail.

About this analysis. AI-Generated from the official bill text and available committee reports. Gaps in available data are noted explicitly. Verify important details with the official Congress.gov record.

On this page

  • Executive summary
  • Key provisions
  • Follow the money
  • Critical analysis
  • Questions to ask
Ask Ledger AI about this