A reported commercial dispute between Motive and Highway has reduced the frequency of ELD data available through Highway for affected carriers. According to Highway’s customer communication, the change has also removed certain location-based alerts and suspended Highway’s Performance Guarantee for loads hauled by carriers using Motive equipment. The incident exposes a larger risk for freight brokers: critical carrier-verification controls increasingly depend on private technology connections that can change without any action by the broker, carrier, shipper or driver.
Introduction
A technology connection used by freight brokers to verify carrier equipment and monitor shipment risk has reportedly become less effective following a disagreement between two major freight-technology providers.
Highway informed customers that Motive had restricted its application programming interface, or API, connection after requesting compensation for access to carrier data. Highway reportedly declined the proposed arrangement.
According to Highway’s notice, Motive ELD information remains visible within the Highway platform, but it now refreshes less frequently. The connection has therefore not been described as a complete disconnection.
The practical effects reported by Highway are significant:
- Location data for carriers using Motive equipment refreshes less frequently.
- Highway can no longer provide certain location-based Load Lock Alerts for those carriers.
- Loads moved by affected carriers are no longer covered by Highway’s Performance Guarantee.
- Highway is offering an application-based tracking alternative for eligible customers.
- The alternative is not directly connected to the vehicle’s installed ELD equipment.
The change does not mean carriers using Motive ELDs have automatically become unsafe, fraudulent or unqualified. It also does not mean Motive devices no longer satisfy federal electronic-logging requirements.
What has changed is the quality and commercial protection associated with a private verification connection used by many freight brokers.
That distinction is important.
This is not currently a federal compliance failure. It is a breakdown in the private technology layer built around carrier identity, equipment location, cargo security and brokerage risk management.
It also raises a difficult question for the freight industry: Who controls the operational data generated by a motor carrier, and what happens when the technology companies carrying that information cannot agree on its commercial value?
What Has Been Confirmed—and What Remains Unknown
Freight brokers should avoid treating every claim surrounding the disagreement as an established fact.
The available account is based primarily on a communication Highway sent to its customers. Highway is directly involved in the disagreement and therefore represents one side of the matter.
At the time of the initial report, Motive had not publicly explained its position. Neither company had disclosed the proposed payment terms, the previous integration agreement or the current status of negotiations.
Several important facts therefore remain unknown:
- How much compensation Motive reportedly requested.
- Why Motive changed the connection terms.
- What the original agreement allowed each company to access.
- How many carriers and active loads are affected.
- Whether the restriction is temporary or permanent.
- Whether the companies are actively negotiating a resolution.
- Whether additional functions could be restored or restricted.
- How brokers will change their carrier-selection decisions.
It is also inaccurate to describe the reported change as a total loss of Motive data inside Highway. Highway’s notice described reduced refresh frequency, the removal of specific alerts and the withdrawal of a commercial guarantee.
Carriers using Motive equipment reportedly remain visible within the Highway platform.
Until Motive responds publicly or both companies provide additional documentation, brokers should treat explanations of motive, responsibility and future outcomes as unconfirmed.
Why This Matters
The dispute matters because freight brokerages increasingly depend on interconnected technology providers to make carrier-selection and cargo-security decisions.
A modern carrier-verification process may involve:
- Federal operating-authority records.
- Insurance certificates.
- Safety information.
- Carrier identity and ownership data.
- Verified telephone numbers and email domains.
- Electronic logging device information.
- Equipment-location data.
- Shipment-tracking applications.
- Fraud-detection platforms.
- Carrier-monitoring services.
- Internal transportation-management systems.
Many brokers view the final verification screen as a single product. In reality, the result may depend on several separate systems exchanging information through private commercial agreements.
The broker does not negotiate those agreements. The carrier may not be involved in them. The shipper may not even know they exist.
Nevertheless, a change between two vendors can immediately affect the broker’s visibility and risk protection.
This creates a form of technology concentration risk.
If one connection becomes unavailable, slower or commercially restricted, the broker may lose a control that had become part of its standard operating procedure. Employees must then determine whether an alternative provides equivalent protection.
That decision becomes especially difficult when freight must move immediately.
A broker may have a legitimate carrier ready at pickup, but the carrier uses an ELD provider whose data is no longer refreshing at the expected frequency. The brokerage must decide whether to proceed, request additional verification, change tracking methods or assign another carrier.
Every option has consequences involving cost, service, capacity and risk.
The Performance Guarantee Changes the Risk Calculation
One of the most consequential reported changes is Highway’s withdrawal of its Performance Guarantee for loads moved by affected carriers.
The guarantee was designed as a commercial backstop under which Highway assumed defined financial responsibility for qualifying outcomes involving carriers verified through its platform.
Removing that protection does not prove that a carrier is fraudulent. It means Highway is no longer willing to support the same risk position when the carrier’s underlying Motive data is refreshing less frequently.
That risk returns to the brokerage unless another contractual, technological or insurance protection applies.
Brokerages must therefore understand exactly what their verification subscriptions and guarantees cover.
They should not assume that a guarantee applies to every carrier, load, equipment provider or tracking method. Coverage may depend on specific verification procedures, data connections and employee actions.
A brokerage relying on such protection should immediately determine:
- Which carriers and loads remain eligible.
- When the reported change became effective.
- Whether previously assigned loads retain coverage.
- Which verification steps must be completed.
- Whether application-based tracking qualifies.
- What exclusions apply.
- How exceptions must be documented.
- Who must approve uncovered carrier assignments.
A guarantee has value only when employees understand its conditions before a problem occurs.
ELD Tracking and App-Based Tracking Are Not Identical
Highway reportedly offered an application-based tracking option for certain customers affected by the reduced Motive integration.
This may preserve useful shipment visibility, but brokers should understand the difference between the two methods.
ELD-connected tracking is tied to equipment installed in or associated with the commercial vehicle. When properly authorized and integrated, it can provide equipment-linked location information.
Application-based tracking typically depends on a mobile device carried by the driver or another participant. Its performance may be affected by:
- Location permissions.
- Battery level.
- Mobile-data coverage.
- Application settings.
- Device sharing.
- Driver participation.
- Whether the telephone remains with the truck.
App tracking is not automatically unreliable. It is widely used throughout freight transportation and can provide valuable shipment visibility.
However, it does not necessarily establish the same direct relationship between the location signal and the assigned commercial equipment.
For routine freight, app-based tracking may remain appropriate when supported by additional controls. For high-value, theft-sensitive or identity-sensitive cargo, the brokerage may require stronger equipment verification and more frequent manual contact.
The tracking method should match the shipment’s risk—not merely the easiest available technology.
What This Means for Carriers Using Motive
Carriers should not be blamed for a commercial disagreement between technology providers.
A legitimate carrier may have purchased Motive equipment, maintained active authority, carried proper insurance and served customers successfully without any involvement in the reported dispute.
That carrier may now encounter additional questions, alternative tracking requests or different brokerage procedures.
Smaller carriers could feel the greatest impact because individual load opportunities matter more to businesses operating a limited number of trucks.
Brokers should avoid creating an automatic rejection policy based solely on the carrier’s ELD brand unless their legal, insurance or contractual requirements demand it.
Instead, the brokerage should evaluate whether it can obtain equivalent confidence through additional verification.
Affected carriers can prepare by maintaining:
- Accurate company and dispatch contact information.
- Current authority and insurance records.
- Verified driver telephone numbers.
- Tractor and trailer identification.
- Recent equipment photographs when requested.
- Pickup and delivery documentation.
- Alternative tracking capability.
- Clear authorization connecting the driver, dispatcher and carrier.
Fast, professional responses can help a legitimate carrier demonstrate that a technology limitation is not an identity problem.
What This Means for Shippers
Shippers may not directly use either platform, but the disagreement could still affect their freight.
Possible consequences include:
- Longer carrier-approval times.
- Additional pickup-verification requirements.
- Reduced access to certain trucks.
- Changes in shipment-tracking methods.
- More manual check calls.
- Higher costs for sensitive freight.
- Delays while brokers complete secondary verification.
Shippers should ask logistics providers how they maintain security when a preferred technology connection becomes unavailable.
A strong answer should include alternative data sources, manual verification procedures, escalation rules and documented approval authority.
“Our platform approved the carrier” is no longer sufficient.
The brokerage should be able to explain which information was reviewed, when it was refreshed and how the assigned driver and equipment were connected to the approved carrier.
The Broader Freight-Technology Problem
The reported disagreement reveals a structural weakness in freight technology.
Operational data may be generated by a carrier, collected by an ELD provider, transmitted through an integration, interpreted by a verification platform and used by a broker to satisfy a shipper’s security requirements.
Several businesses can therefore depend on the same information while having different views about ownership, access and payment.
Carrier consent answers one question: whether the carrier authorizes its information to be shared.
It does not necessarily answer another: whether one technology company must compensate another for providing the connection.
Those commercial arrangements usually remain invisible until a disagreement interrupts the workflow.
The industry must eventually address several questions:
- Who owns carrier-generated operational data?
- Who may charge for access to it?
- How should carriers be notified when connections change?
- Should brokers receive advance notice before a critical integration is restricted?
- What minimum data quality is required for a verification guarantee?
- How can carriers move their authorized data between platforms?
- What contingency standards should verification providers maintain?
As freight fraud grows more sophisticated, access to trustworthy equipment and identity data becomes more valuable. That value will continue creating commercial tension between platforms.
The industry cannot assume every connection will remain permanent.
The Freight Broker Playbook
1. Identify Loads and Carriers Potentially Affected
Brokerages should determine which approved carriers rely on Motive equipment and whether current or upcoming loads depend on Highway functions that have reportedly changed.
The review should prioritize:
- High-value cargo.
- Frequently stolen commodities.
- Same-day pickups.
- New carrier relationships.
- Recently changed contact information.
- Shipments requiring continuous tracking.
- Loads previously expected to receive guarantee coverage.
The objective is not to remove every affected carrier. It is to identify where an additional control may be required.
2. Verify the Pickup Chain Independently
A valid carrier profile does not automatically prove that the person arriving at the shipper is authorized to collect the freight.
Before release, the broker should connect:
- The approved motor carrier.
- The verified dispatcher.
- The assigned driver.
- The tractor number.
- The trailer number.
- The pickup number.
- The shipper’s release instructions.
Any unexplained mismatch should stop the release until it is independently resolved.
Employees should never verify suspicious information by calling a telephone number contained only in the questionable email or document. They should use an independently confirmed contact channel.
3. Create a Secondary Tracking Procedure
Every brokerage should know what happens when its preferred tracking connection becomes unavailable.
A backup procedure may include:
- Alternative ELD integrations.
- Mobile-application tracking.
- Driver check calls.
- Geofenced facility confirmations.
- Photographic equipment verification.
- Ship-from and receiver confirmations.
- Seal-number verification.
- Escalation to a security or compliance employee.
The secondary method should be documented before employees need it.
4. Match Verification Strength to Cargo Risk
Not every load requires the same controls.
A routine shipment with an established carrier may justify a different procedure than electronics, pharmaceuticals, alcohol, copper, food products or other theft-sensitive cargo.
Brokerages should classify loads according to value, commodity, lane, pickup location, carrier history and fraud indicators.
Higher-risk shipments may require:
- Equipment-linked tracking.
- Multiple verified contacts.
- Driver and vehicle photographs.
- Frequent location checks.
- Strict route controls.
- No unauthorized cross-docking.
- No unattended trailer parking.
- Immediate escalation when tracking stops.
Verification should be risk-based, repeatable and documented.
5. Review Vendor Dependencies and Contract Terms
Brokerages should map the external systems supporting carrier onboarding, identity verification, insurance monitoring, ELD data, tracking, fraud detection and guarantees.
For every critical vendor, management should ask:
- Which third-party data connections does the service require?
- What happens when one connection is restricted?
- How quickly will customers be notified?
- Is historical information preserved?
- Which features become unavailable?
- Does financial protection continue?
- What alternative verification method is offered?
- Can the brokerage export its records?
A technology provider can be valuable without being treated as the brokerage’s only line of defense.
6. Preserve Human Judgment
Automation can identify changes, compare records and produce alerts. It cannot eliminate the need for experienced judgment.
An employee should review the complete situation when:
- Contact information changes suddenly.
- The driver cannot explain the dispatch relationship.
- Equipment numbers do not match.
- Tracking originates away from the truck.
- The carrier requests unusual payment instructions.
- A dispatcher pressures the shipper to release freight quickly.
- A normally available data source stops refreshing.
A green indicator should support a decision—not replace one.
AMB Logistic’s Role
AMB Logistic understands that dependable freight coordination requires more than access to one carrier database or tracking platform.
Technology is an important part of modern logistics, but secure transportation also depends on disciplined verification, direct communication and shipment-level accountability.
AMB Logistic focuses on:
- Reviewing carrier information before assignment.
- Confirming shipment and equipment requirements.
- Maintaining clear communication from pickup through delivery.
- Monitoring freight according to its service and risk profile.
- Responding quickly when tracking or operating conditions change.
- Coordinating appropriate truckload, LTL, expedited and specialized capacity.
- Keeping customers informed when exceptions require action.
No technology connection can replace responsibility for the individual shipment.
When systems change, integrations weaken or unexpected risks appear, customers still need a logistics partner capable of evaluating the situation and protecting the movement.
FAQ
Did Motive completely disconnect from Highway?
Based on Highway’s reported customer notice, no. The connection was described as restricted, with Motive data refreshing less frequently inside Highway. Certain alerts and guarantee coverage were also reportedly removed.
Why was the connection reportedly restricted?
Highway stated that Motive requested compensation for access to carrier data and that Highway declined. Motive had not publicly presented its explanation when the initial report was published.
Are carriers using Motive ELDs still visible in Highway?
According to the available report, yes. The reported problem involves refresh frequency and specific risk-control functions—not the complete disappearance of affected carriers.
Does this mean Motive ELDs are not federally compliant?
No. The reported dispute concerns a private commercial integration. It does not, by itself, change the federal compliance status of Motive’s registered ELD equipment.
Are carriers using Motive automatically high-risk?
No. A carrier’s ELD provider does not establish whether the carrier is legitimate or qualified. Brokers should apply appropriate secondary verification instead of making unsupported assumptions.
What happened to Highway’s Performance Guarantee?
Highway reportedly withdrew guarantee coverage for loads moved by carriers using the affected Motive connection because the underlying data no longer refreshed at the previous frequency.
Can brokers use mobile-app tracking instead?
Highway reportedly offered an app-based alternative for certain customers. Brokers should recognize that telephone-based tracking is not identical to tracking connected directly to installed vehicle equipment.
What should brokers verify before pickup?
Brokers should confirm the carrier’s authority, insurance, identity, dispatcher, driver, tractor, trailer, pickup number, contact channels and tracking method. Higher-risk freight may require additional controls.
Should shippers reject affected carriers?
Not automatically. Shippers and brokers should determine whether alternative verification can provide sufficient confidence for the specific cargo and shipment.
What is the larger lesson?
Freight brokerages should not depend entirely on one vendor or integration for carrier verification. Every critical technology workflow needs a documented contingency process.
Final Word From AMB Logistic
The reported Motive–Highway disagreement is more than a dispute between two freight-technology companies.
It demonstrates how quickly a private commercial decision can affect the verification tools used by brokers, the tracking options available to shippers and the freight opportunities accessible to carriers.
The available information does not justify blaming affected carriers or declaring one company responsible before both sides provide complete explanations.
It does justify immediate operational attention.
Brokerages should identify affected loads, understand where guarantee coverage no longer applies, establish secondary tracking and strengthen pickup-chain verification.
They should also review their dependence on every external technology connection supporting carrier selection and cargo security.
Freight technology is strongest when it supports disciplined human decisions. It becomes dangerous when employees assume a platform connection is permanent, complete or incapable of failure.
The central lesson is simple:
Verify the carrier. Verify the equipment. Verify the pickup chain—and always maintain a backup when the technology connecting them changes.
Talk to AMB Logistic Today
Protect your freight with responsive coordination, dependable capacity and clear shipment-level communication.
Connect with AMB Logistic for your truckload, less-than-truckload, expedited, specialized and time-sensitive transportation requirements.
AMB Logistic
Email: info@amblogistic.us
Phone: +1 (888) 538-6433
Website: www.amblogistic.us
Tags
Motive, Highway, Freight Brokerage Technology, Carrier Verification, ELD Data, Freight Fraud, Cargo Security, Load Tracking, Performance Guarantee, Freight Broker Risk, Carrier Vetting, Pickup Verification, Trucking Technology, U.S. Logistics, Supply Chain Security, AMB Logistic
