Pink Cheetah v. TQL: Court Opens Door for Key Transparency Claim

The Best Logistics Nearshore Teams Don't Feel Like Vendors. They Feel Like Yours.

66% of logistics pros say talent quality — not cost — is the #1 factor in choosing a nearshore partner. Rapido's integration model explains why that's the right question to be asking.

🎣 Another Round of Volatility

Plus, a carrier pleading guilty to mob money laundering while still FMCSA-active, Iran's first post-ceasefire attack and what it means for diesel surcharges, FedEx Freight's first earnings as a standalone company, and more in today's newsletter.

800 Freight Emails a Day? You're Counting Your Inbox Wrong

Freight brokers are measuring their inboxes wrong. Most inbound email is monitoring, not work. And the longtail categories that look like noise are costing real margin. Here's how to audit what's actually in your inbox, and why it matters in 2026's margin-first market.

Note: This article was updated at 8:18am EST

A federal court did not allow any part of Pink Cheetah Express to continue; it dismissed the lawsuit in full, but in a detailed footnote the judge explained how Pink Cheetah could have argued instead, signaling that an amended complaint may still be possible.

Court Raises Concern Over Waivers

Pink Cheetah’s latest filing challenges the enforceability of contract waivers tied to 49 CFR §371.3, the federal broker transparency rule requiring disclosure of shipper payment records. In a footnote, the Court suggested that such waivers could be deemed unlawful if they allow brokers to sidestep federal obligations.

“It troubles the Court that regulated entities may attempt to evade regulatory obligations by embedding waivers in contractual agreements,” the opinion stated.

While Pink Cheetah’s current complaint focused narrowly on a November 2023 FMCSA order, the Court explained how the carrier could amend its claim to argue that all waivers of §371.3 are illegal and unenforceable. The Court, however, dismissed the case as pled, noting Pink Cheetah had only pointed to the November 2023 email as an “order” and had disclaimed the theory that rulemaking may qualify as an “order.”

Background: Ice Cream Load Sparks David vs. Goliath Case

The case traces back to January 2023, when Pink Cheetah hauled a load of ice cream for $1,500 and requested TQL’s billing records to the shipper. Under §371.3, carriers have the right to review those records, but TQL denied the request, citing a 2019 broker-carrier agreement that included a transparency waiver.

An FMCSA investigation later forced TQL to hand over the documents, which showed the broker kept 44% of the shipper’s payment, well above the typical industry margin of 14–16%. Pink Cheetah then filed suit, seeking:

Release of unredacted records for 14 additional loads
Removal of the waiver clause from TQL’s contracts
Enforcement of FMCSA’s transparency order across its network

TQL countered with a motion to dismiss, arguing the case was filed in the wrong jurisdiction, Pink Cheetah lacked standing, and the waiver was valid.

Ultimately, the Court dismissed the complaint in its entirety. No claims were allowed to proceed. The judge’s footnote simply outlined what Pink Cheetah could have argued instead.

Why It Matters for Brokers and Carriers

The dispute is unfolding just as FMCSA finalizes new transparency rules that would:

Ban waiver clauses in broker-carrier contracts
Require brokers to keep electronic transaction records
Mandate disclosure within 48 hours of carrier requests

Attorney Matthew Leffler, who has closely followed the case, noted in response to questions that “An FMCSA rule requires disclosure. Many brokers force carriers to sign a waiver of this disclosure. This court is questioning whether TQL should be able to require waiver.”

If Pink Cheetah amends its complaint along the lines the Court flagged, and if a court ultimately accepts such a theory, the case could reshape how brokers structure contracts, potentially eliminating waiver clauses across the industry.

Source: Matthew Leffler/X