Stop Scamming Truckers Act
HB8799, titled the Stop Scamming Truckers Act, would regulate private communications that reference USDOT numbers or federal motor carrier registration requirements. The bill is aimed at preventing misleading solicitations sent to motor carriers and prospective motor carriers by private companies that may appear to be affiliated with the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration or the Department of Transportation. It requires covered private entities to include a clear disclosure stating they are not a federal agency and are not affiliated with the U.S. Government.
The bill also prohibits private entities from using names, seals, logos, insignia, or trade dress that would reasonably imply a federal affiliation, and bars them from suggesting that payment is required to obtain or maintain a USDOT number. It applies to written, electronic, and digital communications about USDOT registration, renewal, updating, maintenance, or compliance, and requires the disclosure to be prominent and readable in both print and digital formats.
If enacted, the bill would create new federal disclosure and anti-deception requirements for private businesses that market USDOT-related services to trucking companies and owner-operators. It would also create a private right of action allowing recipients of noncompliant communications to sue in federal court for actual damages, statutory damages of $500 to $5,000 per violation per communication, injunctive relief, and attorneys’ fees, with a five-year statute of limitations. The bill expressly preserves existing FMCSA and DOT enforcement authority and does not preempt stronger state consumer-protection laws.
The available context suggests the bill is framed as a consumer-protection measure for truckers and small motor carriers, especially those who may be vulnerable to deceptive mailings or online solicitations. The title and findings indicate a strong anti-scam, pro-small-business posture, and the bill was introduced and referred to committee without any recorded votes or committee debate in the provided materials. Because no transcript or vote data is available, there is no documented opposition or support beyond the bill’s stated purpose.
The main potential point of contention is the scope of liability imposed on private service providers that communicate about USDOT numbers, including the mandatory disclosure, restrictions on branding and wording, and the private right of action with statutory damages. Businesses that sell registration or compliance assistance may argue the bill could sweep in legitimate commercial communications or create litigation risk, while supporters would likely emphasize the need to stop deceptive practices that mimic government notices. Another possible issue is how broadly the term ‘USDOT number communication’ is interpreted and whether the disclosure requirements are burdensome for routine compliance-related outreach.