TQL will have to make oral arguments in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on September 11 of this year in the case brought by Pink Cheetah, the owner-operator who for years has demanded broker transparency documentation from the mega broker.
This follows a lower court, the District Court for D.C., ruling in TQL's favor and dismissing Pink Cheetah's case.
The case, at heart, confronts whether a November 30, 2023, email from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration telling TQL to drop contractual waivers blocking carriers from requesting rate transparency documentation constitutes a binding order.
[Related: TQL 'offsetting' its way out of paying carriers?]
That's a big question, because TQL admits FMCSA Transportation Specialist Nelson Newcomb told it to "ensure compliance" with CFR Section 371.3 by producing "transaction records to any carrier when requested" and dropping the transparency waiver from its carrier agreements.
But while FMCSA definitely told TQL to do those two things, TQL only ever showed Pink Cheetah the records, and never dropped the waiver.
A legal brief filed with the Appeals Court by TQL said the broker didn't consider FMCSA's email an enforceable order, so they disregarded it.
The District Court sided with TQL on that count, but Pink Cheetah further appealed it. Now they're headed to oral arguments in the Appeals Court, maybe coming as a shock to TQL, who's consistently dismissed all of the carrier's claims.
In its brief to the Appeals Court filed in April, TQL argued Pink Cheetah badly misunderstands how the lower court acted, that much of her complaint is contrary to settled law, and that she mistakes a 2024 FMCSA Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on broker transparency as a binding rule.
"Pink Cheetah’s failure to acknowledge the distinction between an NPRM and a final binding agency rule gives the misleading impression that there is an enforceable regulation on the books when, in fact, no such rule has been adopted," TQL's lawyers wrote.
That 2024 NPRM would significantly shift the responsibility for requiring broker transparency documentation to an "obligation" for brokers like TQL.
[Related: Transparency: FMCSA proposes 'regulatory obligation' for brokers]
However, that rulemaking hasn't advanced since.
Recent signs of life for the broker transparency rulemaking include the Department of Transportation's 2026 Unified Agenda, in which FMCSA says it's considering petitions to automate transparency disclosures in 48 hours and to ban contractual waivers against it.
In July 2025, FMCSA indicated to Overdrive that the broker transparency rulemaking would be part of the "pro-trucker package" it unveiled and part of an attempt at "cracking down on illegal brokering."
Pink Cheetah argued in a brief filed in April that the lower court had erred in acting of its own will to settle the matter, and that FMCSA's email to TQL did indeed constitute an order. Pink Cheetah's brief states that on the particular load TQL provided transparency documentation for, the broker kept 44% of the load.
Now the sides will have it out in the second highest court in the land as FMCSA weighs its new rulemaking. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, coincidentally, will also hear oral arguments about FMCSA's ban of non-domiciled CDLs in September.
Overdrive readers, polled in 2025, largely supported the terms of FMCSA's 2024 broker transparency proposal, predicting positive impacts, as shown in the graph below.
Brokers, however, have vowed to fight the transparency push.
Pink Cheetah's case in September will shed light on whether or not big brokers like TQL can ignore direction from FMCSA and continue to waiver their way out of transparency requests.
[Related: Broker transparency, AEBs, EPA emissions: When new rulemakings are expected]
