Landstar Removes More Than 35,000 Carriers

Landstar has reduced its approved carrier network by approximately 35%, cutting the pool from more than 100,000 carriers in 2022 to roughly 64,600 by the end of the second quarter of 2026. The decision reflects a fundamental change in freight brokerage: access to a large carrier database is becoming less important than maintaining a smaller, continuously verified and defensible network.

Introduction

For years, freight brokerages treated carrier-network size as a competitive advantage.

A broker with tens of thousands of approved carriers could claim broader geographic coverage, faster load acceptance and stronger access to specialized equipment. Large databases helped brokers respond quickly when customers requested capacity in unfamiliar markets.

That strategy is now being reconsidered.

Landstar System has removed more than 35,000 motor carriers from its approved network over the past four years. Its carrier pool fell from more than 100,000 in the second quarter of 2022 to approximately 64,600 by the end of the second quarter of 2026.

The reduction did not happen in a single purge. It was part of a multiyear effort focused on safety, security, service, identity verification and freight-fraud prevention.

The company continued reducing its network during 2026. Its approved brokerage carrier count declined again year over year as Landstar maintained stricter standards instead of reopening access simply because truck capacity was tightening.

This is an important distinction.

Landstar did not state that every removed carrier was unsafe, fraudulent or unqualified. Some carriers may have become inactive, failed to satisfy updated requirements, presented incomplete records, no longer matched Landstar’s operating needs or failed to provide sufficient recent information.

The development should therefore not be presented as 35,000 confirmed bad carriers.

The larger lesson is that Landstar decided those carriers no longer belonged in its approved operating network under its current risk, service and qualification standards.

That decision arrives at a critical moment for freight brokerage.

Cargo theft and carrier-identity fraud are becoming more sophisticated. Criminal groups can impersonate legitimate carriers, compromise email accounts, alter contact information, take control of operating identities and intercept real shipments without appearing suspicious during a basic database check.

At the same time, freight brokers face greater potential legal exposure connected with motor-carrier selection. The Supreme Court’s Montgomery decision weakened a federal-preemption defense that brokers had previously used against certain state negligent-selection claims.

The decision did not make brokers automatically responsible for every carrier accident. It did, however, increase the importance of demonstrating how a carrier was selected, which information was reviewed, which warning signs were considered and why the final decision was reasonable.

The freight market is also tightening.

Landstar reported that transportation conditions were moving more rapidly in favor of providers. Its truck revenue grew while revenue per load increased significantly. Reducing the approved carrier pool during a tightening market may limit the number of immediately available options, but Landstar appears willing to accept that trade-off in exchange for stronger control.

The carrier-network strategy is therefore about more than fraud prevention.

It concerns the future economics, accountability and competitive structure of freight brokerage.

Why This Matters

Landstar’s carrier reduction matters because freight brokers are being forced to balance three increasingly conflicting objectives:

• Securing capacity quickly
• Maintaining competitive transportation costs
• Proving that every carrier-selection decision followed a reasonable process

In a loose freight market, brokers can be highly selective because many carriers compete for a limited number of loads.

In a tight market, the pressure changes.

Trucks become harder to find. Carrier rates rise. Primary options reject more tenders. Customers still expect the broker to protect service and control costs. Employees may feel pressure to approve a new carrier quickly because a pickup appointment is approaching.

That is precisely when weak qualification practices become dangerous.

A carrier can possess active authority and insurance while still presenting meaningful operational concerns. Authority and insurance are essential baseline checks, but they do not establish that the carrier’s identity is legitimate, its dispatch contact is authentic, its equipment matches the shipment or its safety and service history is appropriate for the load.

Modern carrier verification may require a broader review of:

• Operating authority
• Insurance status and limits
• Authority age
• Safety information
• Inspection history
• Crash information
• Cargo claims
• Contact-information changes
• Email-domain consistency
• Telephone ownership
• Business-address history
• Equipment ownership
• Electronic logging and tracking connections
• Driver identity
• Pickup details
• Payment-information changes
• Prior broker relationships
• Suspicious booking behavior

A carrier may pass one check and fail another.

For example, a legitimate carrier’s operating identity may be compromised by a criminal. The public authority remains active because the real carrier is still authorized. Insurance may also remain valid. However, the person communicating with the broker may be using a spoofed email address, altered telephone number or compromised account.

A one-time authority check will not detect every form of identity theft.

This is why Landstar’s smaller network is significant. The company is signaling that carrier approval is not simply a one-time administrative event. It is an ongoing operational decision.

The Broader Picture

Landstar’s reduction reflects a broader restructuring of the freight-brokerage industry.

For much of the freight downturn, brokerages competed aggressively for limited customer volume. Shippers held greater pricing leverage, and brokers frequently relied on low carrier costs to protect or improve margins.

That balance is changing.

Truck capacity has tightened as carriers exited the market, reduced equipment, parked tractors or stopped accepting unprofitable freight. Regulatory enforcement and stricter driver requirements are creating additional pressure. Insurance, fuel, maintenance, equipment and labor costs remain difficult for smaller carriers.

At the same time, brokers are narrowing their carrier networks because of fraud and liability concerns.

These forces can compound one another.

If fewer carriers remain active and major brokers approve a smaller portion of them, the practical supply of usable brokerage capacity can fall faster than the total number of registered carriers suggests.

A carrier may exist in the market but still be unavailable to a particular broker because of:

• Insufficient authority age
• Limited inspection history
• Conditional safety status
• Inadequate insurance
• Missing tracking capability
• Recent ownership changes
• Contact-information inconsistencies
• Unresolved identity concerns
• Incomplete documentation
• Shipment-specific restrictions

This can produce a market in which freight demand remains moderate while qualified capacity becomes expensive.

The result may include:

• Higher spot rates
• Increased tender rejections
• Greater contract-rate pressure
• More difficult rural coverage
• Fewer options for specialized freight
• Longer capacity lead times
• Increased reliance on established carriers
• Greater importance of accurate forecasts

The legal story, fraud story and capacity story are becoming the same story.

What This Means for Freight Brokers and Logistics Teams

Freight brokers should view Landstar’s decision as a signal to evaluate network quality—not as an instruction to remove a fixed percentage of carriers.

Copying the 35% reduction would be arbitrary.

A broker should first understand its own network.

Important questions include:

• How many approved carriers have hauled a load in the past 30, 90, 180 or 365 days?
• How many records contain outdated contact information?
• How many carriers have undergone ownership or authority changes?
• How many have missing or expired documents?
• How many operate in the brokerage’s core lanes?
• How many can provide reliable shipment tracking?
• Which carriers generate recurring service failures?
• Which carriers have unresolved claims or payment disputes?
• Which approvals were based on manual exceptions?
• Can the brokerage document the reason for each exception?
• How quickly does the system detect safety, insurance or identity changes?

The answers will identify whether the approved network is an operational asset or a collection of stale records.

Brokers should also separate carrier approval from shipment approval.

A carrier may be generally approved but unsuitable for a particular load.

A dry-van carrier with a strong operating history may not be appropriate for high-value electronics. A regional carrier may not have the experience required for cross-border service. A carrier with general freight coverage may not satisfy temperature-controlled or hazardous-material requirements.

Shipment-level selection should consider:

• Commodity
• Cargo value
• Equipment
• Lane
• Distance
• Delivery requirements
• Theft exposure
• Border requirements
• Temperature control
• Insurance limits
• Operating history
• Driver and equipment verification

Approval must answer two questions:

1. Is this a legitimate and qualified carrier?
2. Is this the right carrier for this particular shipment?

Carrier-Network Size Is No Longer the Best Measure of Brokerage Strength

A large carrier database can look impressive while providing limited practical value.

Many approved carriers may be inactive, unavailable, unsuitable for the requested freight or disconnected from the lanes the broker actually manages.

Others may have changed ownership, insurance, authority status, dispatch contacts, business addresses or operating models since onboarding.

The useful question is not:

How many carriers exist in the system?

The better questions are:

• How many were verified recently?
• How many have hauled successfully?
• How many are active in the required lanes?
• How many operate the required equipment?
• How many can provide compliant tracking?
• How many have a documented performance history?
• How quickly are changes in carrier information detected?
• Can the brokerage explain why each carrier remains approved?

A network of 20,000 current and repeatedly verified carriers may be more valuable than a database containing 100,000 records with limited recent activity.

This changes how freight brokers should describe capacity to customers.

The strongest claim is no longer simply, “We have access to thousands of carriers.”

A more credible claim is:

We maintain a qualified carrier network supported by documented verification, current monitoring, shipment-level controls and accountable exception management.

That message is less dramatic, but it is more meaningful.

The Montgomery Decision Raised the Value of Documentation

The Supreme Court’s Montgomery decision changed the legal environment surrounding freight-broker liability.

The decision allows certain state negligent-selection claims against freight brokers to proceed despite the federal-preemption argument brokers had relied upon in similar cases.

It is important not to exaggerate the ruling.

The decision did not establish that every broker is liable whenever a motor carrier causes an accident. It did not impose automatic liability based solely on the broker-carrier relationship. It also did not provide a precise federal checklist defining reasonable carrier selection.

The ruling instead increased the possibility that a broker’s selection process may be examined under state law.

That examination can focus on practical questions:

• What did the broker know about the carrier?
• When did the broker obtain that information?
• Which databases or records were reviewed?
• Were any warning signs visible?
• Did the broker follow its written procedures?
• Were exceptions approved by an authorized person?
• Was the carrier appropriate for the shipment?
• Was monitoring continued after dispatch?
• Can the broker produce the records supporting its decision?

The difference between having a process and proving the process was followed is critical.

A brokerage may have a carrier-qualification policy in its employee handbook. That alone may not establish that the policy was applied to the carrier involved in a particular shipment.

Defensible operations require shipment-level records.

Those records may include timestamps, verification results, insurance confirmation, authority status, safety information, identity checks, employee approvals, exception notes, tracking connections and communication history.

If the system only shows that a carrier was approved several years ago, the brokerage may struggle to explain what was known when the most recent load was tendered.

Landstar’s carrier reduction can therefore be understood as a documentation strategy as much as a safety strategy.

A smaller, cleaner network may be easier to monitor, audit and defend.

Freight Fraud Is Changing Carrier Approval

Traditional cargo theft often involved stealing a parked trailer, breaking into a warehouse or taking freight from an unsecured facility.

Strategic freight theft can look completely legitimate.

A criminal may impersonate an established carrier, compromise a dispatcher’s email, alter a load confirmation, redirect a driver, manipulate contact information or use false documents to collect freight from a shipper.

The truck that arrives at the dock may be real. The driver may hold a valid license. The carrier authority shown on the paperwork may belong to a legitimate company.

The failure occurs because the identities, instructions and relationships do not match.

This creates a difficult problem for brokers.

The carrier identity may appear legitimate at the company level while the shipment-level contact is fraudulent.

Effective verification must therefore continue after carrier approval.

Brokerages may need controls at several points:

During Carrier Onboarding

Confirm authority, insurance, business identity, ownership, contact details, banking information and operating history.

During Load Booking

Verify the dispatcher, telephone number, email domain, lane history, equipment, rate behavior and recent account changes.

Before Pickup

Confirm the assigned driver, tractor, trailer, pickup number, facility requirements and tracking connection.

At the Shipping Facility

Match the arriving driver and equipment against the broker’s verified dispatch information before releasing cargo.

In Transit

Monitor unexpected route changes, tracking loss, communication failures, unauthorized stops and conflicting status reports.

Before Payment

Review last-minute banking changes, unusual factoring instructions, mismatched documentation and duplicate invoice submissions.

A carrier that passed onboarding can still become a risk later. Continuous verification is therefore replacing permanent approval.

A Smaller Network Can Create Better Service—or New Capacity Problems

Reducing a carrier network does not automatically improve every brokerage operation.

A smaller carrier pool can provide several advantages:

• Easier monitoring
• Cleaner records
• Stronger relationship development
• Better performance history
• Faster identification of information changes
• More consistent tracking
• Improved insurance and claims documentation
• Reduced fraud exposure
• Greater operational accountability

However, it can also create disadvantages:

• Fewer emergency recovery options
• Reduced access to unfamiliar markets
• Higher procurement costs
• Greater dependence on core carriers
• Longer coverage times
• Capacity shortages during seasonal surges
• Pressure to approve exceptions at the last moment

The success of the strategy depends on network quality and lane alignment.

A brokerage should not remove carriers indiscriminately to create the appearance of stronger compliance. It should identify which carriers are active, reliable, relevant and verifiable.

The goal is not the smallest possible network.

The goal is the most dependable network appropriate for the freight being managed.

A national general-freight brokerage will require a different network from a specialist handling refrigerated food, high-value electronics, heavy haul, cross-border freight or hazardous materials.

Risk-based qualification is more practical than applying an identical requirement to every carrier and shipment.

The Freight Broker Playbook

1. Audit the Existing Carrier Network

Begin with a complete review of the approved carrier database.

Segment carriers by:

• Last load date
• Number of completed shipments
• Primary lanes
• Equipment type
• Service performance
• Claims history
• Tracking compliance
• Safety information
• Authority age
• Contact changes
• Payment changes
• Exception history

Identify carriers that have not hauled recently, contain incomplete information or no longer match the brokerage’s operating needs.

Do not automatically delete every inactive carrier. Some may provide valuable specialized or seasonal capacity.

Instead, move questionable or dormant records into a status requiring renewed verification before dispatch.

2. Replace Permanent Approval With Continuous Monitoring

Carrier approval should not last indefinitely without review.

Create automatic alerts for changes involving:

• Authority
• Insurance
• Safety status
• Ownership
• Business address
• Telephone number
• Email domain
• Factoring company
• Banking information

Require renewed review when significant information changes.

High-risk changes should prevent automated tendering until an authorized employee verifies the update independently.

Continuous monitoring does not mean repeating a complete onboarding process every day. It means identifying meaningful changes before they affect a shipment.

3. Introduce Risk-Based Shipment Controls

Not every shipment requires the same level of verification.

Create risk categories based on commodity, value, lane, theft frequency, equipment and operational complexity.

A basic low-value shipment on a familiar lane may follow standard procedures.

A high-value electronics shipment may require:

• Longer carrier-authority history
• Higher insurance limits
• Proven lane experience
• Direct driver verification
• Tractor and trailer confirmation
• Continuous tracking
• Restricted stopping
• Team-driver requirements
• Controlled appointment information
• Immediate escalation for route deviation

Document why additional controls were applied.

4. Build a Defensible Decision Record

Every carrier-selection decision should leave a clear record.

The record should show:

• Who selected the carrier
• When the review occurred
• Which information was checked
• What the results showed
• Whether warning signs appeared
• How exceptions were handled
• Who approved the exception
• Which shipment-specific requirements were confirmed
• How monitoring continued after dispatch

Avoid relying on undocumented telephone conversations.

When an exception is discussed verbally, record the substance of the decision in the transportation-management system.

Documentation should be accurate and useful, not created merely to produce paperwork.

5. Protect Capacity While Raising Standards

A broker cannot operate successfully if its qualification program removes too much legitimate capacity.

Before tightening requirements, identify the lanes most dependent on small or specialized carriers.

Communicate updated expectations to existing partners and provide a reasonable process for correcting incomplete information.

Develop core-carrier relationships on strategic lanes and maintain verified backup options.

Encourage carriers to complete tracking integrations, update documents and confirm contact information before peak periods.

The best qualification program protects both safety and service.

What This Means for Motor Carriers

Smaller carrier networks will make it more important for legitimate motor carriers to keep their operating information current and consistent.

Carriers may lose access to brokerage freight if they fail to respond to verification requests or if their information creates uncertainty.

Motor carriers should maintain consistency across:

• FMCSA records
• Insurance certificates
• Business addresses
• Telephone numbers
• Email domains
• Factoring instructions
• Banking information
• Driver lists
• Equipment records
• Tracking connections

Frequent or unexplained changes can resemble behavior associated with fraud, even when the carrier is legitimate.

Carriers should notify trusted broker partners before making significant changes to dispatch contacts, ownership, factoring companies, payment instructions or business locations.

They should also protect email accounts and telephone systems. A legitimate carrier can become part of a fraudulent transaction if criminals compromise its communications.

Professional communication matters.

Refusing all tracking, avoiding verification questions, demanding rushed payment changes or using inconsistent contact details may cause a broker to reject an otherwise qualified carrier.

The new environment will reward carriers that can demonstrate transparency, stable operations and documented service performance.

What This Means for Shippers

Shippers should not evaluate a broker solely by carrier-network size.

A broker claiming access to 100,000 carriers may sound more capable than one maintaining a smaller network. However, size alone says nothing about recent verification, performance history, identity controls or shipment-level suitability.

Shippers should ask more practical questions:

• How does the broker qualify carriers?
• How frequently are carriers rechecked?
• What happens when carrier information changes?
• How are drivers and equipment verified before pickup?
• Does the broker prohibit unauthorized re-brokering?
• How are high-value shipments protected?
• What tracking standards are required?
• Which conditions trigger manual review?
• Who can approve exceptions?
• How long are qualification records retained?
• How does the broker respond when tracking fails?
• What insurance does the broker maintain?
• How are cargo claims and service failures handled?

Shippers also control a critical point in freight security: the loading dock.

Even strong broker verification can fail if a facility releases freight to a driver or truck that does not match the approved pickup information.

Facilities should verify:

• Driver name
• Carrier name
• Tractor number
• Trailer number
• Pickup number
• Appointment details
• Identification requirements
• Broker authorization

Employees should know whom to contact when information does not match.

Speed at the dock should never override shipment verification.

AMB Logistic’s Role

AMB Logistic believes that dependable freight execution begins with responsible carrier selection.

Finding an available truck is only one part of the brokerage process. The truck, carrier, driver and equipment must also be appropriate for the shipment.

AMB Logistic supports freight execution through:

• Qualified carrier relationships
• Shipment-specific carrier selection
• Clear pickup and delivery instructions
• Responsive communication
• Shipment visibility
• Early exception detection
• Documented operational procedures
• Cargo-security awareness
• Risk-based decision-making
• Accountable recovery support

The objective is not to build the largest carrier database.

The objective is to build dependable capacity around the customer’s freight.

A strong brokerage relationship requires balance.

Shippers need competitive transportation options, but low rates cannot come at the expense of carrier legitimacy, insurance, safety, security or service.

Carriers need fair access to freight, but they must also maintain current records, provide accurate information and support reasonable verification.

Technology can accelerate carrier checks and identify unusual patterns. It cannot replace professional judgment in every situation.

AMB Logistic combines operational technology with human oversight because freight exceptions rarely follow a perfect workflow.

When information conflicts, tracking fails, a driver changes, an appointment moves or equipment does not match, an experienced person must evaluate the situation and take responsibility for the next decision.

Frequently Asked Questions

How many carriers did Landstar remove?

Landstar reduced its approved brokerage carrier network by more than 35,000 carriers over approximately four years. Its carrier pool fell from more than 100,000 in 2022 to roughly 64,600 by the end of the second quarter of 2026.

Were all removed carriers unsafe or fraudulent?

No such conclusion should be made. Removal from an approved network does not prove that a carrier was unsafe or fraudulent. Carriers may be removed for inactivity, incomplete information, changed requirements, service concerns, compliance issues or failure to meet a broker’s internal standards.

Why is Landstar reducing its carrier pool?

The company has emphasized safety, security, service, freight-fraud prevention, carrier identity and stronger verification. The strategy also becomes more important as broker liability receives greater legal scrutiny.

What did the Montgomery ruling change?

The Supreme Court determined that certain state negligent-selection claims against freight brokers are not automatically blocked by federal preemption. The ruling increases the importance of reasonable carrier-selection practices and documented decision-making.

Does Montgomery make brokers responsible for every carrier accident?

No. The ruling does not create automatic broker liability. A claimant must still pursue and prove the applicable legal case. However, brokers may face greater scrutiny over how they selected and monitored motor carriers.

Why not approve every carrier with active authority and insurance?

Authority and insurance are essential, but they may not reveal identity theft, compromised communications, shipment-specific risks, poor service history or suspicious operational changes.

Will stricter carrier vetting reduce truck capacity?

It can reduce the number of carriers available to a particular broker. If the broader market is already tightening, stricter approval standards may contribute to higher rates and longer coverage times on selected lanes.

Should small brokers reduce their networks by 35%?

Not automatically. Every brokerage has different customers, modes, lanes and risks. Brokers should audit their networks and remove or reverify carriers based on evidence—not copy Landstar’s percentage.

What is continuous carrier monitoring?

Continuous monitoring involves watching for meaningful changes in authority, insurance, safety information, ownership, contact details, payment instructions and other risk indicators after initial onboarding.

What is shipment-level verification?

Shipment-level verification confirms that the approved carrier, dispatcher, driver, tractor, trailer and tracking information match the specific load being handled.

How can carriers avoid being removed from broker networks?

Carriers should maintain current and consistent records, protect their communications, respond to verification requests, support tracking, notify brokers before making significant account changes and provide dependable service.

What should shippers ask freight brokers?

Shippers should ask how carriers are qualified, monitored and verified at pickup; how exceptions are approved; how high-risk freight is protected; what insurance is maintained; and how records are documented.

Does a smaller carrier network always mean safer freight?

No. Network size alone does not determine safety. A smaller network is only valuable when supported by accurate data, repeat verification, clear procedures, trained employees and responsible shipment execution.

Can artificial intelligence solve carrier vetting?

AI can detect patterns, compare information, automate repetitive checks and identify changes. Human review remains important when data conflicts, exceptions arise or high-risk decisions require judgment.

What is the most important lesson for freight brokers?

The strongest carrier network is not necessarily the largest. It is the network a broker can verify, monitor, understand and defend while still meeting customer service requirements.

Final Word From AMB Logistic

Landstar’s removal of more than 35,000 carriers marks an important shift in freight brokerage.

The industry is moving away from measuring strength solely by the number of carriers stored in a system.

Carrier quality, identity, monitoring, documentation and shipment suitability are becoming more important than database size.

This shift is being driven by several forces at once:

• More sophisticated freight fraud
• Greater cargo-security concerns
• Rising broker-liability exposure
• Tighter truck capacity
• Higher insurance scrutiny
• Stronger customer expectations
• Improved verification technology

The challenge is balance.

Brokers cannot protect customers by approving every available carrier without sufficient review. They also cannot provide dependable service if their standards remove legitimate capacity without a rational, risk-based process.

The future of freight brokerage belongs to companies capable of doing both:

Protecting access to qualified capacity while maintaining a documented and accountable carrier-selection process.

That requires more than software.

It requires disciplined procedures, trained employees, current data, reliable carrier relationships and the willingness to slow down when information does not match.

A truck being available does not make it the right truck.

A carrier holding authority does not make every communication authentic.

A low rate does not make a shipment secure.

The strongest brokers will understand these distinctions before a load is picked up—not after something goes wrong.

Talk to AMB Logistic Today

Build a more dependable freight operation with qualified carrier relationships, responsive communication, current market insight and disciplined shipment execution.

AMB Logistic
Email: info@amblogistic.us
Phone: +1 (888) 538-6433
Website: www.amblogistic.us

Tags

Landstar carrier network, freight brokerage, carrier vetting, freight broker liability, Montgomery ruling, negligent carrier selection, cargo theft, freight fraud, carrier identity theft, strategic cargo theft, truck capacity, spot freight rates, carrier qualification, continuous carrier monitoring, broker insurance, freight security, shipment verification, logistics risk management, trucking compliance, third-party logistics, freight transportation, AMB Logistic