Websites give audiences a first glimpse at who a company is and what it does. Despite its importance, website content is often drafted quickly without considering 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 Scopelitis attorneys think transportation 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 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 state challenges driver classification.

1. 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 separate spaces for these operations can help delineate the roles of separate but affiliated entities to help protect against enterprise or single-entity theories of liability.

1. Misrepresentation of Operations.

Companies should be careful that 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 broking loads to third-party carriers).

1. Cargo Liability.

Unlike motor carriers, property brokers are not statutorily liable for cargo losses. As noted above, a broker’s website often uses language that suggests it is providing services as a motor carrier. 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.

1. Accident Liability.

Similar to the risks associated with cargo losses, website language suggesting motor carrier services can also assist plaintiff’s attorneys when arguing a broker should be held responsible for accident liability.