Websites give audiences a first glimpse at who a company is and what it does. Despite its importance, website content is often drafted quickly with only business considerations in mind and without much thought given to potential legal ramifications. Webpages contain critical language that can create significant legal risks for all transportation companies, including motor carriers and third-party intermediaries (e.g., property brokers and freight forwarders).

There are many reasons why companies should regularly review and update the language used on websites. Here are five that companies should specifically keep in mind:

1. Independent Contractor Issues. Websites are among the first resources regulators and plaintiffs’ attorneys turn to when looking to bolster their reclassification cases because they often contain employment-like language that may be mischaracterized in various types of independent contractor reclassification actions. Such language can be used as evidence of control over an independent contractor driver or even the driver of a third-party motor carrier to whom loads are brokered. This could jeopardize the driver’s independent contractor status or create joint employment concerns. Revising or removing this problematic language puts a company in a better position to defend itself if a driver or government agency challenges driver classification.
2. Corporate Veil Piercing Concerns. Business organizations with multiple related corporate entities often conflate their various operations under one primary brand name and flagship website. While that might be good for branding purposes, having at least separate sections within a corporate website for each different operation can help delineate the roles of separate but affiliated entities – helping to protect against enterprise or single-entity theories of liability.
3. Misrepresentation of Operations. Companies should be careful their websites do not create confusion as to the type of transportation services being provided. For example, a property broker’s website might use language that suggests it is providing motor carrier services (as opposed to just brokering loads to third-party carriers).
4. Cargo Liability. Unlike motor carriers, property brokers are not statutorily liable for cargo losses. Broker websites often use language suggesting that motor carrier services are being provided. This can help bolster a plaintiff’s argument that the broker was holding itself out to the public as providing carrier services and, therefore, should be held liable for cargo losses.
5. Accident Liability. Similar to the cargo loss risk, website language suggesting motor carrier services can also assist plaintiff’s attorneys when arguing a broker should be held responsible for accident liability.

To discuss further, please contact Jeff Jackson or Prasad Sharma at Scopelitis, Garvin, Light, Hanson & Feary.