We continue to see an increase in instances of motor carriers filing or threatening to file defamation lawsuits against brokers in an effort to have negative online reviews and reports published by the broker removed.

The recent case, Out of Nowhere v. Nolan Transportation Group, LLC No. 1:23-cv-00041-VMC, 2025 WL 28012, at *2 (N.D. Ga. Jan. 3, 2025), provides an example of this trend.  In this case, there were several miscommunications between broker and carrier regarding delivery times and the weight of the load. These miscommunications led to complications in pick-up and resulted in the carrier giving the broker an “ultimatum,” holding the freight hostage and demanding additional compensation. The broker asked the motor carrier not to leave, agreed to pay for waiting time, and advanced $1,100.After the incident, the motor carrier repeatedly contacted the broker, its customer, and the receiver.

Following the incident, the broker submitted a FreightGuard Report that stated, in part, that the receiver was “running behind” on unloading due to a necessary crane being held up at another job and informed the motor carrier that it would be three hours before the crane was available. Id. at *4. The broker also stated the motor carrier “held [the load] hostage until we paid him half the line haul upfront, then he harassed our employers nonstop via phone, email, and text.” Id.

In response, the carrier filed suit and, in relevant part, brought a defamation claim against the broker, arguing that the statements that the receiver was running behind and that the carrier was informed that it would be three hours before the crane arrived were false. Id. at *9. The motor carrier further argued that the broker’s claim that the carrier “‘held [the freight] hostage’ falsely implied a criminal act and moreover ignore[d] the fact that he was unable to deliver the freight when he arrived.” Id. On the other hand, the broker argued that such minor “inaccuracies in these statements do not render the posts as a whole substantially false[.]” Id.

Ultimately, the court sided with the broker and granted summary judgment in its favor on the defamation count. See id. at *10. It stated that, pursuant to applicable Georgia law, “[a]s long as facts are not misstated, distorted, or arranged so as to convey a false and defamatory meaning, there is no liability for a somewhat less than complete report of the truth.” Id. at *9. While the court agreed that the broker’s “postings gave the false impression that the receiver just happened to be running late, when [the broker] knew it would be late long before [the motor carrier] arrived and neglected to inform [the motor carrier] of that fact[,]” such misstatements only went to the motor carrier’s “motivations for taking those actions.” Id. at *10. Further, the broker’s statement that the motor carrier held the load “hostage” was merely “an expression of opinion about motivation.” Id. Because the motor carrier had admitted to having taken the underlying actions, these statements by the broker “[did] not render the postings substantially false.” Id.

This case offers a timely reminder to freight brokers that publish such reports to carefully consider the factual accuracy of such reports to mitigate the potential exposure and risk of a claim for defamation.   For more information, please contact Nathaniel Saylor, Clifford Lauchlan, or Kelsey Napier.