GAO

United States General Accounting Office

Report to Congressional Committees

March 2001 CONSUMER 

PROTECTION

Federal Actions Are 

Needed to Improve 

Oversight of the 

Household Goods 

Moving Industry

GAO-01-318

Page 1 GAO-01-318 Consumer Protection in the Moving Industry

Contents

Letter 3

Appendixes Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 26

Appendix II: Complaints Recorded by Selected Federal and

Industry Organizations 31

Appendix III: Role of States Regarding Consumer Complaints 36

Figures Figure 1: Complaints Recorded by Selected Federal Motor

Carrier Safety Administration Division Offices, 

January 1996-September 2000 32

Figure 2: Complaints Recorded by the Council of Better Business 

Bureaus, 1996-99 34

Figure 3: Requests for Arbitration Received by the American

Moving and Storage Association, 1996-2000 35

Abbreviations

FTC Federal Trade Commission

ICC Interstate Commerce Commission
Page 2 GAO-01-318 Consumer Protection in the Moving Industry
Page 3 GAO-01-318 Consumer Protection in the Moving Industry

United States General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548 Letr

March 5, 2001

The Honorable John McCain

Chairman

The Honorable Ernest Hollings

Ranking Member

Committee on Commerce, 

Science, and Transportation

United States Senate

The Honorable Thomas Petri

Chairman

The Honorable Robert Borski

Ranking Minority Member

Subcommittee on Highways 

and Transit

Committee on Transportation

and Infrastructure

House of Representatives

The ICC Termination Act of 1995 transferred federal responsibilities for 

protecting consumers who move their household goods across state lines 

using commercial moving companies to the Department of Transportation. 

A 1998 congressional hearing brought to light a number of instances in 

which unscrupulous movers preyed on consumers. The hearing also 

demonstrated a lack of effective oversight and enforcement of the industry 

by the Department of Transportation. 

The Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999 directed that we assess 

the effectiveness of the Department of Transportation’s consumer 

protection activities for the interstate household goods moving industry 

and identify alternative approaches for providing consumer protection in 

the industry. Accordingly, this report discusses (1) the nature and extent of 

consumer complaints about household goods carriers since 1996, (2) the 

roles of consumers in preventing and resolving disputes and of government 

agencies in providing consumer protection, (3) the Department of 

Transportation’s oversight and enforcement activities with respect to this 

industry, and (4) issues associated with an expanded state role in this area. 

This report focuses on commercial moves of individual households and 

does not discuss interstate moves arranged by governments or 

corporations for their employees.
Page 4 GAO-01-318 Consumer Protection in the Moving Industry

To address these topics, we contacted or met with officials from a variety 

of industry, law enforcement, consumer, and alternative dispute resolution 

associations involved with the household goods moving industry or 

consumer protection activities. We also met with officials from the 

Department of Transportation’s Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration (the motor carrier administration)—the federal agency that 

has oversight and enforcement responsibility for this industry—and met 

with or contacted officials from 14 of the 52 division (state) offices within 

the motor carrier administration. We chose these locations because they 

represented the states with the greatest number of interstate moves or 

because our discussions with federal agencies, industry associations, and 

consumer groups indicated that these states appeared to be experiencing 

the most problems with interstate household goods moves. (See app. I for a 

detailed discussion of how we carried out our work.)

Results in Brief Information is not collected in a way that would readily provide a national 

perspective on the extent and nature of consumer complaints about the 

interstate household goods moving industry. The information we compiled 

from selected federal agencies and industry organizations indicated that 

the complaints they received—covering both interstate and intrastate 

carriers—generally doubled between 1996 and 1999 and may number 

several thousand a year. The information from these organizations and 

from consumer groups further suggests that some complaints result from 

consumers’ failure to protect themselves (by, for example, getting 

estimates over the telephone rather than having a moving company 

physically determine the amount of goods to be moved). Other complaints 

occur because carriers do not follow federal law and regulations and bill 

consumers excessively when consumers’ goods are delivered. Still other 

complaints result from apparently unscrupulous carriers that demonstrate 

a desire to prey on consumers. 

For moving services as for other major goods and services, the primary 

responsibility for consumer protection lies with consumers to select a 

reputable household goods carrier, ensure that they understand the terms 

and conditions of the contract, and understand and pursue the remedies 

that are available to them when problems arise. The Congress authorized 

the Department of Transportation to regulate the interstate household 

goods moving industry for the purpose of protecting consumers. A House 

Committee report accompanying this authorization directed the 

Department not to attempt to resolve individual households’ disagreements 

with carriers. Rather, the Congress required carriers to establish neutral 
Page 5 GAO-01-318 Consumer Protection in the Moving Industry

arbitration processes to help resolve loss and damage disputes. Consistent 

with this congressional directive, the Department has generally not become 

involved in attempting to settle disputes between individual consumers and 

carriers. Instead, when it has undertaken enforcement actions, it has 

focused its efforts on carriers that appear to exhibit patterns (e.g., multiple 

instances) of noncompliance with its regulations. In these cases, the 

Department takes action against the carrier, such as issuing compliance 

orders, assessing monetary penalties, and revoking the carrier’s operating 

authority.

The Department of Transportation has provided limited oversight of and 

taken little enforcement action in consumer protection issues because this 

responsibility is a relatively low priority compared with promoting motor 

carrier safety. Accordingly, few resources were transferred to this activity 

when the Department assumed responsibility for this industry, and the 

Department has not subsequently asked for additional resources. Among 

other things, it has not systematically collected and analyzed information—

such as complaint information—about the industry that would help it carry 

out its responsibilities; it has conducted little public education to help 

consumers make more informed choices; it has not studied the 

effectiveness of arbitration as a means of resolving disputes, as required by 

law; it could not provide the number of reviews it has undertaken of 

carriers’ compliance with consumer protection regulations but estimated 

there have been very few; and it has taken few enforcement actions. 

Government, consumer organization, and industry officials we contacted 

believe that the Department’s lack of action has created a vacuum that has 

allowed unscrupulous carriers to flourish and take advantage of 

consumers. In December 2000, the motor carrier administration approved 

plans to increase public education, information collection, and 

enforcement, among other things. Although it has begun to take some 

action, such as establishing a toll-free hotline, many of the outlined plans 

consist of broad objectives and lack specific steps for implementation. We 

are making recommendations to assist the Department in carrying out its 

oversight and public education activities for this industry.

An expansion of the states’ role in the regulation of interstate household 

goods carriers has the potential to enhance protection for consumers. 

Federal law currently allows the states to address abusive business 

practices that extend beyond their borders in other areas of interstate 

commerce, such as telemarketing and fair credit reporting. As in these 

areas, legislation could be enacted to authorize the states to enforce federal 

statutes and regulations applicable to interstate carriers of household 
Page 6 GAO-01-318 Consumer Protection in the Moving Industry

goods. The moving industry opposes state enforcement against interstate 

carriers because of concerns about the potential for inconsistent 

interpretation and enforcement among states. In addition, changes to the 

federal statute governing carriers’ liability for loss or damage in interstate 

shipments, which limits state law claims, have the potential to improve 

protection for consumers. Federal legislation could limit the preemptive 

effect of the statute to allow individual consumers to recover damages 

from interstate household goods carriers under state law under specified 

circumstances. Such legislation might also explicitly authorize the states to 

enforce state consumer protection statutes against household goods 

carriers. We are not recommending that the Congress make these 

legislative changes, in part because we believe that the Department could 

take a number of actions to strengthen its oversight of this industry that 

might lessen or eliminate the need for legislative changes. 

In commenting on a draft of this report, the Department said that it 

recognizes its responsibilities in the area of household goods consumer 

protection and will work to the best of its ability, within established 

resource constraints, to fulfill its responsibilities while it fulfills its motor 

carrier safety responsibilities. The Department also believes that its 

December 2000 plans to establish a new oversight and enforcement 

approach will be effective. We agree that this new approach has the 

potential to improve oversight and enforcement. However, it will be 

important for the Department to demonstrate to the Congress and to the 

public that it can follow through with its consumer protection efforts over 

the long term.

Background Each year, between 1.3 million and 1.5 million households have commercial 

moving firms move their household goods to another state, according to 

industry estimates.1

 There are approximately 2,900 motor carriers 

registered with the Department of Transportation that are active in 

transporting household goods across state lines. These 2,900 carriers 

represent a small percentage of the approximately 654,000 commercial 

1

This estimate includes moves of individual households, moves arranged by governments, 

and moves arranged by corporations for their employees because industry officials do not 

separately track moves in these categories. Industry estimates indicate an additional 1.3 

million to 1.5 million households move themselves with their own or rented trucks each 

year.
Page 7 GAO-01-318 Consumer Protection in the Moving Industry

motor carriers engaged in all aspects of interstate commerce (and 

registered with the Department).

Household goods carriers are of three types: national van lines, 

independent carriers, and short-haul movers. Most interstate moves are 

conducted by approximately 25 van lines—companies that market and 

dispatch moves in which agents, acting on the van lines’ behalf, perform the 

actual moves.2

 These agents are local moving companies that own the 

moving equipment and storage facilities used in interstate moves. 

Independent carriers lease or own their own equipment and storage 

facilities but do not have agents. Independent carriers often share storage 

facilities and some equipment in an effort to provide enough capacity and 

flexibility to compete with the van lines. According to industry officials, 

short-haul movers typically undertake moves of around 500 miles that do 

not require storage facilities or return trip loads of goods.

Because most consumers seldom use moving companies for their 

household goods, they are less prepared to protect themselves financially 

than are commercial shippers. Until 1996, the Interstate Commerce 

Commission (ICC) had regulatory responsibility for interstate household 

goods carriers, including issuing regulations, conducting oversight 

activities, and taking enforcement actions. The ICC Termination Act of 

1995, among other things, dissolved ICC and transferred these consumer 

protection functions (called “economic regulation”) to the Department of 

Transportation. These functions were further assigned to the motor carrier 

safety office within the Federal Highway Administration. The Motor Carrier 

Safety Improvement Act of 1999 transferred these consumer protection 

functions to a new organization within the Department, the Federal Motor 

Carrier Safety Administration. In addition to its headquarters facilities, the 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration maintains a field office 

structure consisting of 4 service centers and 52 division offices—one in 

each state, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia.

2

A single move could involve several agents. For example, one agent might estimate the 

cost of the move, and a second agent might pack the household goods and move them to 

temporary storage at a third agent’s location. Finally, a fourth agent might pick up the goods 

from storage and deliver them to their final destination.
Page 8 GAO-01-318 Consumer Protection in the Moving Industry

Information on the 

Nature and Extent of 

Problems Is Limited

Data weaknesses do not allow us to assess the nature and extent of the 

problems consumers have had nationwide with various aspects of the 

interstate moving industry since 1996. One reason is that the government 

offices and business and industry organizations we contacted that receive 

complaints from consumers do not centrally compile information on the 

nature of the complaints and often do not differentiate between complaints 

against interstate and intrastate moving companies.3

 Another reason is that 

organizations did not collect information on how the complaints were 

resolved. The federal motor carrier administration estimates that it 

receives 3,000 to 4,000 complaints about interstate moves each year.

Available information indicates that consumers have complained about a 

broad range of problems in dealing with household goods carriers in recent 

years. Some alleged problems reflect misunderstandings between 

consumers and carriers about (1) when services were to be paid for or (2) 

what services were included in the original cost estimate provided to the 

consumer. For example, a carrier arrived at the destination with the 

consumer’s goods on the scheduled delivery date but the consumer was not 

present; the carrier then took the consumer’s goods to a storage facility—at 

an extra cost to the consumer—until the consumer arrived, and the 

consumer complained about the extra cost. In another example, the 

consumer failed to obtain complete information about the services, 

accepting a telephone estimate of the expected moving charges rather than 

having the moving company provide an on-site estimate—and then 

complained when the actual cost of the move included charges for services 

that were not covered by the estimate.

3

For example, records were available only at the Department’s 52 division offices and at the 

160 local Better Business Bureau Offices. It was not feasible to obtain or review these 

documents from so many locations.
Page 9 GAO-01-318 Consumer Protection in the Moving Industry

Other problems occurred when a carrier lost or damaged the consumer’s 

goods but the consumer and the carrier disagreed on the amount of 

compensation or the carrier took a long time to settle the claim. In some 

instances, the disputed amounts involved thousands of dollars. Consumers 

have also complained that carriers held their goods “hostage” by refusing to 

unload them from the moving truck until the consumer paid the entire 

balance of money due, even though the consumer is not required to pay 

more than 110 percent of the estimated amount to the carrier at the time of 

delivery.4

 Yet some carriers required payment in full—over and above the 

110 percent amount—in cash at the time of delivery. And when the 

consumer did not pay the amount above 110 percent of the estimate, the 

carrier stored the goods at an added cost to the consumer. 

Finally, available information indicates that some consumer complaints 

arose because unscrupulous carriers had no regard for the rights of 

consumers or for the law. In some instances, carriers provided 

unreasonably low estimates that they had no intention of honoring. Some 

carriers also extracted unreasonably high fees from consumers by 

imposing unjustified and exorbitant charges for packing, boxes, tape, and 

other ancillary services. In addition, some carriers engaged in a practice 

called “weight bumping,” in which they artificially inflated the weight of a 

shipment by including the weight of another household’s goods when 

calculating the final bill.5

 Consumers have complained that, in some 

instances, even when they have won judgments against carriers in court, 

they have been unable to collect damages because the carrier has hidden 

its assets.

4

This applies to collect-on-delivery shipments for which nonbinding estimates were made. 

The carrier must defer demand for payment of any remaining charges for 30 days following 

delivery.

5

One common way moving companies determine freight charges is by weighing the goods to 

be transported. To determine the weight of goods, a moving van is weighed before and 

again after the consumer’s goods are loaded. Large moving vans can hold more than one 

household’s possessions. After the van is weighed initially, unscrupulous carriers add the 

weight of another household’s possessions to increase the weight of the van—and of the 

final charge to the consumer.
Page 10 GAO-01-318 Consumer Protection in the Moving Industry

The limited information that is available from selected federal and industry 

organizations suggests that the number of complaints against household 

goods carriers is increasing. The complaints recorded by 12 federal motor 

carrier administration division offices about interstate household goods 

carriers doubled from 318 in 1996 to 659 in 1999. (Two other division offices 

we contacted did not record complaints received.) Nationwide data 

maintained by the Council of Better Business Bureaus6

 indicate a 

nationwide increase in complaints against interstate and intrastate 

household goods carriers from about 3,000 in 1996 to about 5,100 in 1999. 

Another measure—consumer requests for formal arbitration proceedings 

to resolve disputes with carriers—indicates an increase in consumer 

dissatisfaction.7 Such requests submitted to the American Moving and 

Storage Association8

 increased between 1996 and 2000 from about 100 to 

over 700. While all consumer complaints or requests for arbitration may not 

have merit, they represent consumer dissatisfaction that consumers want 

addressed. (See app. II for additional information.)

Consumers Have 

Primary Responsibility 

for Preventing and 

Resolving Problems; 

Government Has a 

Broader Oversight and 

Enforcement Role

To resolve individual disputes over interstate shipments of household 

goods, consumers are expected to avail themselves of self-help 

mechanisms, such as neutral arbitration. Under the ICC Termination Act of 

1995, the Department of Transportation is authorized to conduct oversight 

and provide enforcement activities, among other things, to protect these 

consumers.

6

One of the best-known consumer complaint organizations is the Better Business Bureau. 

The Council of Better Business Bureaus is the national umbrella organization for over 160 

local Better Business Bureaus. These are nonprofit organizations dedicated to promoting 

ethical relationships between businesses and consumers.

7

Arbitration is the submission of a dispute to one or more impartial persons for resolution.

8

The American Moving and Storage Association is the national trade association of the 

moving and storage industry. It is the largest industry association and represents 

approximately 2,000 movers, van lines, and their agents that are engaged in the interstate 

transportation of household goods.
Page 11 GAO-01-318 Consumer Protection in the Moving Industry

For moves of household goods across state lines, as for other services, 

consumers are primarily responsible for protecting their own interests. It is 

up to them to select a reputable carrier, ensure that they understand the 

terms and conditions of the contract, and understand the remedies that are 

available to them when problems arise so that they can resolve disputes 

directly with the carrier. Typically, a consumer first tries to work with the 

carrier directly or through state or local government agencies, if such help 

is available, to resolve a dispute. If the results are not satisfactory, the 

consumer can seek further recourse—arbitration—through industry and 

business associations, such as the American Moving and Storage 

Association, the Council of Better Business Bureaus, and other 

independent arbitration organizations nationwide.9

 Alternatively, the 

consumer can pursue civil litigation for violations of the household goods 

consumer protection statutes and regulations.

Since 1996, the Department of Transportation has had primary federal 

authority for regulating the interstate household goods moving industry—

specifically, for issuing regulations to protect consumers, conducting 

oversight activities (including reviewing carriers’ compliance with those 

regulations), and taking enforcement actions. Among other things, the 

Department’s existing consumer protection regulations cover the (1) types 

of cost estimates carriers can provide to consumers, (2) guidance that 

carriers must provide to consumers about their rights and responsibilities 

when they move, (3) approved methods for carriers to weigh shipments of 

household goods used to determine the final costs of the move, (4) process 

through which carriers handle inquiries and complaints, and (5) maximum 

charges consumers are required to pay at the time their goods are delivered 

to the final destination. 

Historically, the Department’s oversight activities for all types of 

commercial motor carriers—not just household goods carriers—include 

collecting information on the state of the industry, such as complaints 

lodged against registered carriers. The Department also reviews 

compliance with regulatory requirements (called “compliance reviews”) at 

a carrier’s base of operations. When it identifies instances of 

noncompliance, the Department can rely on a variety of enforcement 

9

The Congress required, under the 1995 act, that household goods carriers offer consumers 

the option of neutral arbitration as a means of settling disputes over household goods 

transportation. Required arbitration covers only the loss of or damage to goods, not other 

problems such as rate disputes, delay claims, or service.
Page 12 GAO-01-318 Consumer Protection in the Moving Industry

activities. For example, it can issue orders to compel compliance, impose 

civil monetary penalties, revoke the carrier’s operating authority, or seek 

federal court orders to stop regulatory violations. While the Congress 

provided the Department with the authority to regulate the interstate 

household goods moving industry, a House Committee report 

accompanying the 1995 act directed the Department not to intervene and 

help resolve individual complaints—as was the practice of ICC. According 

to Department officials, the Department has followed this direction and, 

when it undertakes enforcement actions, focuses on patterns of behavior 

(e.g., multiple complaints) by a carrier. 

Another federal agency, the Surface Transportation Board,10 has the 

authority to determine whether a moving company’s charges to consumers 

are consistent with its tariff (a published list of charges for specific services 

provided). Consumers can use the Board’s opinion in negotiating with the 

carrier or in court.

The states may regulate the transportation of household goods within their 

boundaries (intrastate transportation). In addition, 9 of the 14 states we 

contacted attempt to help consumers with complaints involving interstate 

transportation. According to state officials, this involvement is generally 

limited to informal mediation of the complaint with the carrier, unless state 

officials believe the carrier has violated that state’s consumer protection or 

fraud statutes. State involvement in matters involving interstate carriers is 

limited, at least in part, by a federal statute that preempts a broad range of 

state law claims for loss or damage in interstate transportation. (See app. 

III for additional information on states’ roles.)

10The Board is a bipartisan, independent adjudicatory agency administratively housed within 

the Department of Transportation, with jurisdiction over certain surface transportation 

economic regulatory matters. It was created by the ICC Termination Act of 1995 and 

received responsibility for many rail and nonrail functions previously the responsibility of 

ICC.
Page 13 GAO-01-318 Consumer Protection in the Moving Industry

The Department of 

Transportation Has 

Done Little to Oversee 

the Household Goods 

Moving Industry

Since the Department assumed authority for the oversight and enforcement 

of the household goods moving industry 5 years ago, its activities in all 

areas—consumer education, oversight, compliance, and enforcement—

have been minimal. According to Department officials, no more than two 

staff positions were transferred from ICC for household-goods-related 

functions. Typically, the Department has devoted about 5 staff years to its 

household goods consumer protection activities and has not requested 

more resources for these activities from the Congress. Rather, it has 

devoted its attention to motor carrier safety issues, which are its primary 

motor carrier responsibility. The Department undertook few, if any, 

activities related to the industry between 1996 and 1998. In 1998, after a 

congressional hearing on growing problems with certain carriers, it formed 

a task force to provide increased enforcement against egregious carriers. 

This task force initiated 29 enforcement actions against carriers but was 

disbanded in 2000 to be replaced with a permanent enforcement team as 

part of the Department’s plans to increase its efforts in this area. The 

Department also published proposed rules implementing the ICC 

Termination Act and addressing certain consumer protection issues, but 

the rules have not been finalized because of work on other, safety-related 

rules. 

In 2000, when the authority for these activities was transferred to the motor 

carrier administration, the Department established the Office of 

Enforcement and Compliance within the motor carrier administration, with 

enforcement and compliance responsibilities for all carrier types, including 

household goods carriers. Through January 2001, this unit had established 

a minimal system for recording complaints about household goods 

carriers, established a toll-free telephone consumer complaint hotline, and 

produced an outline of plans for public education and enforcement efforts, 

among other things. However, significant elements of the outline—

including plans for public education and outreach, as well as training of 

field investigators on the household goods regulations—lack specific steps.

Officials of the government, industry, and consumer organizations we 

contacted agreed that this minimal activity has created a vacuum that has 

allowed egregious carriers to flourish and take advantage of consumers. 

According to these officials, carriers are aware that the Department does 

little to enforce the consumer protection regulations or provide much 

oversight of the industry. As a result, these officials believe that while most 

moves are completed by reputable carriers with few or no problems, 
Page 14 GAO-01-318 Consumer Protection in the Moving Industry

unscrupulous carriers are taking advantage of the lack of oversight and are 

operating without concern for the regulations or the rights of consumers.

Consumer Education 

Activities Have Been 

Minimal

Education helps consumers understand how they can make the choices 

that will lead to more successful interstate moves. The Department has not 

made an effort to reach out to consumers and organizations, such as 

consumer groups, to promote a message of how consumers can protect 

themselves and get redress when problems arise. Given that consumers 

have primary responsibility for preventing and resolving problems with 

moving companies, such outreach could help prevent consumer problems. 

The Department recognized the importance of consumer education when it 

continued to make available an ICC-developed booklet on consumers’ 

rights and responsibilities. In addition, the Department continued an ICC 

requirement that all interstate household goods carriers provide this 

booklet to their customers. 

The Department’s consumer education efforts have been minimal, limited 

mostly to placing the rights and responsibilities booklet and a Departmentdeveloped “17 most frequently asked questions” document about moving 

on the agency’s Internet Web site. The rights and responsibilities booklet11

and the frequently asked questions document contain much useful 

consumer information. However, making the booklet available on the 

Department’s Web site may not be sufficient because many households do 

not have Internet access.12 In addition, some movers may not be making the 

booklet available to their customers, as required. In this regard, motor 

carrier administration officials who receive consumer complaints in 

California and New York and the Executive Director of the Illinois Movers 

and Warehouseman’s Association told us that, according to consumers who 

contact their organizations after a move has taken place, some carriers 

11The motor carrier administration has not updated the booklet since assuming 

responsibility for this area a year ago. As a result, the booklet still refers to the Federal 

Highway Administration as the federal point of contact for consumers.

12According to a Department of Commerce report, the percentage of American households 

with Internet access in the home is growing. About 42 percent of all households had 

computers with Internet access as of August 2000, up from 26 percent in December 1998. 

However, only about 59 percent of all persons using the Internet at home use it to search for 

information (such as to help them with moving their household goods). The report also 

estimated that about 10 percent of households that never had Internet access at home had 

access elsewhere (such as at work or at a public library). See Falling Through the Digital 

Divide: Toward Digital Inclusion (Oct. 2000).
Page 15 GAO-01-318 Consumer Protection in the Moving Industry

have not offered them this booklet. The motor carrier administration also 

offers a “self-help” package to those who request it. However, the 

usefulness of this package is questionable. It consists of photocopies of 

federal regulations and statutes without explanation to help the reader 

understand them.

One means of consumer education would be through concerted outreach 

to consumers, such as through consumer and industry groups and state 

consumer protection and enforcement agencies. The motor carrier 

administration endorsed the concept of this approach in December 2000, 

but it will not develop concrete activities for carrying it out until June 2001. 

(The motor carrier administration’s plans to increase its presence in this 

area are discussed at the end of this section.) We agree that such outreach 

could be useful in helping consumers understand how to make a move 

more successful and how to seek redress when problems arise. It would 

also be helpful to state agencies when consumers complain to them about 

interstate household goods movers. Over half of the state agencies we 

contacted did not know which federal agency regulates these movers, or 

that any federal agency had any role since the termination of ICC.13

Therefore, they were unable to forward complaints they received about 

interstate moves to the motor carrier administration.

Another opportunity for the Department to help consumers make informed 

choices is to make complaint information available to the public. For 

example, the motor carrier administration receives complaints from some 

consumers about household goods carriers but does not share this 

information with the public because it believes that by doing so it may 

violate consumers’ privacy. Such concerns would have merit if the 

Department identified the complainant when making the information 

public. However, the complaints could be aggregated by carrier and type of 

complaint (e.g., damage to goods shipped, hostage freight) without 

revealing the identity of the complainant. This approach is used by the 

Department’s Aviation Consumer Protection Division. The Aviation 

Consumer Protection Division routinely shares complaint information 

(e.g., damage to luggage, poor service) collected from consumers through 

its Air Travel Consumer Report. The Aviation Consumer Protection 

13Of 24 state agencies we contacted, including offices of the attorney general, 14 did not 

know to refer consumers to the motor carrier administration for help. For example, 

officials with six agencies told us they referred consumer complaints to ICC, the Surface 

Transportation Board, and the Federal Highway Administration.
Page 16 GAO-01-318 Consumer Protection in the Moving Industry

Division shares this information with consumers through its Internet Web 

site to help them make choices about which airlines to use. According to 

the Assistant Director for Aviation Consumer Protection, publishing these 

data assists consumers in assessing the airlines’ service quality while 

encouraging the airlines to improve their service. In addition, Department 

officials are concerned about providing the public with complaint 

information that has not been substantiated by the Department. However, 

the Assistant Director for Aviation Consumer Protection explained that his 

office and the airline industry generally agree that complaints, as reported, 

are real and valid from a consumer’s perspective regardless of whether 

there has been a violation of regulations or simply a disagreement over 

policy and procedures. 

Similarly, in 1998, the Department proposed rules that would implement 

the requirements of the 1995 act and would require carriers to file annual 

reports with the agency that, among other things, include information on 

the number of claims filed with the carrier. The Department planned to 

make this information available to the public, further indicating that 

privacy concerns could be addressed. (The Department has not finalized 

these rules and, therefore, has not implemented this action.) Previously, 

ICC required similar reports and made this information available to the 

public.

The Department Has 

Undertaken Little Industry 

Oversight 

Oversight efforts that would help the Department understand the industry 

and shape its enforcement strategy have been minimal. The motor carrier 

administration has not collected information on the nature and extent of 

complaints in a way that could be used in overseeing the industry. Even 

though it required its division offices to collect information on all 

complaints that came in to them in a complaint register, 2 of the 14 division 

offices we contacted were not using complaint registers because the 

officials in charge of those offices decided that the complaints were so 

infrequent that the registers were unnecessary. The other offices collected 

the information inconsistently, hampering the motor carrier administration 

in understanding the nature and extent of problems reported by 

consumers.14 For example, one office recorded only complaints made in 

writing and ignored complaints made over the telephone, even though the 

14After we discussed this issue with the motor carrier administration official in Texas 

responsible for entering complaints into that office’s register, the state director developed 

procedures to ensure that all telephone complaints were recorded in the complaint register.
Page 17 GAO-01-318 Consumer Protection in the Moving Industry

motor carrier administration’s guidance specified that information from 

telephone complaints be recorded. 

Agency guidance indicates that a primary purpose of the complaint register 

is to identify substantial patterns of noncompliance that would aid in 

targeting unscrupulous carriers for enforcement actions. However, the 

motor carrier administration did not issue any guidance to its division 

offices on how and when to report complaint data to headquarters. 

Division office staff told us that the registers were primarily used to log 

complaints because the agency guidance did not ask for complaints to be 

supplied to headquarters for analysis. In addition to having data quality 

problems, the complaint register system is not designed to share 

information across state lines or with headquarters: The databases that 

each office maintains are “stand-alone”—not electronically linked to each 

other or to headquarters. This design limits the register’s usefulness in 

oversight and enforcement. According to Department officials, the motor 

carrier administration plans to create a new, national consumer complaint 

database by April 2001 for use in enforcement and oversight. While this 

database will accept complaints from all sources—including the general 

public—motor carrier administration staff at headquarters, service centers, 

and division offices will have limited access to the entire system.

Finally, the Department has not undertaken a study of the effectiveness of 

arbitration as a means of settling household goods disputes, despite the 

requirement in the ICC Termination Act that it complete this study within 

18 months. A study of arbitration—required for the first time by the 1995 

act—would be useful in determining the degree to which carriers have 

established accessible and fair arbitration programs. The motor carrier 

administration has no plans to undertake the study. 

The Department Does Not 

Know the Extent to Which It 

Has Examined Carriers’ 

Compliance With Household 

Goods Rules

Agency officials could not tell us how many of the nearly 500 compliance 

reviews of carriers that transport household goods conducted since 1996 

involved ensuring compliance with consumer protection requirements, 

such as the one for carriers to establish accessible and fair arbitration 

programs. Agency officials told us that unless specific complaints have 

been made against a carrier, compliance reviews typically do not include 

checks of the carrier’s compliance with the consumer protection 

regulations because (1) the focus of compliance reviews is to determine the 

operating safety of the carrier; (2) investigators’ training, limited to 1 day, is 

insufficient for them to evaluate compliance with the regulations; and (3) 

departmental manuals on how to conduct compliance reviews include 
Page 18 GAO-01-318 Consumer Protection in the Moving Industry

guidance on only one of the consumer protection regulations (that carriers 

participate in an arbitration program). While the Department’s December 

2000 plans include providing additional training to field safety investigators 

on the household goods regulations, the plans do not indicate the extent of 

training to be provided. In addition, this training is not scheduled to be 

completed until September 2001. In commenting on a draft of this report, 

Department officials noted that the Department began updating its 

compliance review manual to include additional household goods 

regulations in January 2001.

The Department Has Not 

Determined Whether Its 

Level of Enforcement Is 

Appropriate

The Department has not determined whether it is carrying out the 

appropriate level of enforcement activity with respect to households goods 

carriers relative to the other carriers it regulates. Departmental data 

suggest that disproportionately fewer household goods carriers are 

targeted for enforcement than are other types of carriers. In connection 

with routine enforcement activities, the Department has opened 11 cases 

involving household goods carriers (of the approximately 2,900 carriers 

registered with the Department) as compared with completing about 

13,000 enforcement cases involving over 650,000 carriers of all types 

departmentwide since 1996 for all regulatory violations. The 11 cases 

opened against household goods carriers were for (1) violating consumer 

protection regulations, (2) failing to register with the Department, or (3) 

failing to have insurance. The Department had settled these cases, 

including assessing civil penalties against the carriers, as of February 2001. 

In response to congressional concerns in 1998 about such limited 

enforcement, the Department established a temporary task force with 

seven members, including three former ICC investigators, to inspect 

household goods carriers reported to the agency for egregious behavior. 

The task force investigated 29 household goods carriers and brokers that 

appeared to exhibit patterns of abusive activities. Various criminal and civil 

actions were imposed against 22 of them. 

In December 2000, the motor carrier administration proposed to evaluate 

its compliance and enforcement efforts to ensure the effectiveness of its 

enforcement activities. The Department plans to establish a tracking and 

monitoring system to evaluate its efforts by May 2001. In addition, it plans 

to prepare press releases (as needed) of civil penalties and other significant 

enforcement actions taken against household goods carriers or brokers.
Page 19 GAO-01-318 Consumer Protection in the Moving Industry

The Motor Carrier 

Administration’s Plans Lack 

Specificity

Only recently has the motor carrier administration decided that increased 

efforts are needed. As a result, in December 2000, it approved an outline of 

plans to take a more active role in public education, oversight, compliance, 

and enforcement in the household goods moving industry. The outline 

proposes establishing two motor carrier administration teams dedicated to 

addressing consumer problems in the industry. The consumer affairs team, 

comprising two motor carrier administration staff and five contract 

employees, would provide guidance for the public and others about 

available consumer protections, take consumer complaint calls on a tollfree telephone hotline, and log complaints into a national complaint 

database. Team members would be responsible for handling any hostage 

goods complaints through negotiation and appropriate exercise of agency 

authority. If this team was not available to handle the complaint, the 

complaint would be forwarded to the second team, the enforcement team, 

for further handling. This latter team, to consist of four headquarters and 

three field staff members, would monitor complaints and investigate 

household goods carriers on the basis of such factors as the kinds of 

alleged violations, the number of complaints relative to the size of the 

carrier, and the degree of harm to consumers. Enforcement actions would 

then be taken in response to those violations for which the agency 

determined such actions were warranted. The team would also work to 

provide information for the news media, public interest groups, industry 

groups, state governments, and others about consumers’ rights and 

responsibilities and about enforcement remedies within the motor carrier 

administration’s jurisdiction through such means as presentations and 

Internet postings.

The approved plans did not include milestones for implementing the 

Department’s proposed actions. In commenting on a draft of our report, 

which pointed out this omission, the Department announced that in 

January 2001, it had approved milestones for elements of its planned 

approach. However, these plans consist of little more than objectives, 

lacking specific steps needed for implementation. For example, the plans 

lack details on the duration and frequency of training for field investigators 

on the household goods regulations. In addition, the Department’s plans do 

not address the possible retirements within 3 years of several motor carrier 

administration staff with institutional knowledge of the household goods 

regulations. 
Page 20 GAO-01-318 Consumer Protection in the Moving Industry

Issues Associated With 

an Expanded State 

Role in the Regulation 

of Interstate 

Household Goods 

Carriers

Consumer protections have the potential to be enhanced by expanding the 

states’ role in the regulation of interstate household goods carriers. The 

Congress has already expanded state authority in certain other areas of 

commerce, including telemarketing and fair credit reporting, in which the 

Congress has recognized that the states can contribute to addressing 

abusive business practices that extend beyond their borders. As in these 

areas, the states could be authorized to enforce federal statutes and 

regulations applicable to interstate carriers of household goods. Industry 

representatives we contacted opposed such changes, stating that 

inconsistent interpretations of federal statutes and regulations by states 

would damage legitimate carriers. Changes to the federal statute governing 

carriers’ liability for loss or damage in interstate shipments, which limit 

state law claims, also have the potential to improve protection for 

consumers.

States Have Enforcement 

Authority in the 

Telemarketing and Fair 

Credit Reporting Industries

The Telemarketing and Consumer Fraud and Abuse Prevention Act of 1994 

required the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to adopt rules prohibiting 

deceptive and abusive telemarketing practices and authorized the states to 

take enforcement action against those engaging in patterns or practices of 

telemarketing that violate those rules.15 The act reflects congressional 

findings that interstate telemarketing fraud had become a problem of such 

magnitude that FTC’s resources were not sufficient to ensure adequate 

consumer protection. Although FTC does not regularly track state 

activities, an official estimated that at least 21 individual state actions have 

been brought and that joint actions number in the hundreds. An FTC 

official also pointed out that since 1996, in joint FTC and state 

investigations of telemarketing fraud, the resources of all 50 states and FTC 

have been efficiently used to benefit consumers nationwide. 

The states also share enforcement authority with FTC with respect to 

credit reporting under the 1996 amendments to the Federal Fair Credit 

Reporting Act. The act authorizes the states to take enforcement action on 

behalf of consumers to bring a stop to violations and recover damages. 

According to an FTC official, the states have generally not yet used their 

authority under the act and may be allocating enforcement resources to 

other law enforcement priorities.

15Among other things, the states may obtain injunctions against illegal telemarketing 

activities and damages on behalf of their residents.
Page 21 GAO-01-318 Consumer Protection in the Moving Industry

Industry Believes That State 

Enforcement Is Inadvisable

The industry position, as articulated by the American Moving and Storage 

Association, is that authorizing the states to enforce federal statutes and 

regulations would result in “ . . . a firestorm of inconsistent, varying 

interpretations of federal law that present the potential for injunctive relief, 

threatening the continued operations of legitimate movers.” The 

Association has also argued that a small minority of consumers would push 

their grievances, even when carriers had complied with federal regulations, 

and that some states would improperly move against the carriers.

To address the potential for inconsistent state interpretation in connection 

with the telemarketing and fair credit reporting statutes, FTC works with 

the states to address interpretation issues before cases are initiated. Both 

statutes require the states to notify the Commission before taking 

enforcement action or, if that is not possible, immediately upon taking 

action.

The Carmack Amendment 

Limits Claims Under State 

Law

Consumer advocates and state officials we contacted also advocate 

changes to the Carmack Amendment, a federal statute that preempts a 

broad range of state law remedies in connection with loss and damage in 

interstate shipments.16 The Carmack Amendment imposed a uniform 

scheme of liability for loss or damage to eliminate the uncertainty 

associated with conflicting state laws regarding interstate shipments. 

Courts have consistently held that the Carmack Amendment bars 

consumers from filing claims under state law, including those for a carrier’s 

breach of contract, negligence, deceptive practices, and fraud.

However, the extent of the Carmack Amendment’s preemptive effect in 

connection with individual consumer claims is not as clear. Furthermore, 

there is some question about the states’ authority to take enforcement 

action against interstate carriers unrelated to loss or damage under state 

consumer protection statutes. The National Association of Consumer 

Agency Administrators and several state officials have suggested that the 

Congress explicitly authorize the states to enforce such statutes against 

interstate movers to remove any questions concerning their enforcement 

authority in light of the Carmack Amendment. In addition, the preemptive 

effect of the Carmack Amendment could be limited to allow individual 

consumers to recover damages under state law under certain 

16The Carmack Amendment is set forth in section 14706 of title 49, U.S. Code.
Page 22 GAO-01-318 Consumer Protection in the Moving Industry

circumstances. For example, an official from one state suggested that the 

Carmack Amendment be modified so as not to preempt state law with 

respect to household goods carriers operating without tariffs in violation of 

federal law. (See app. III for additional information.)

As discussed in the previous section, a number of areas exist in which the 

motor carrier administration could better oversee the household goods 

moving industry and help consumers make informed choices when they 

move their household goods. We believe that actions in these areas could 

lead to improved compliance with federal laws and regulations. We also 

believe that action by the Department in areas in which it currently is 

exercising little authority should precede state involvement in this area. 

Once the Department completes its December 2000 plans and effectively 

implements the recommendations contained in this report, it will be in a 

better position to determine what additional benefits, if any, would accrue 

from legislative changes that would expand the states’ role with respect to 

interstate household goods carriers.

Conclusions Available information indicates that consumer complaints in the household 

goods industry are increasing. In addition, there was widespread 

agreement among the government, industry, and consumer organizations 

we contacted that the Department’s lack of action has contributed to the 

growth of problems. The Department defends its limited actions by stating 

that safety activities are the primary focus of its motor carrier efforts. 

However, the Department has not taken steps to understand the nature and 

extent of problems in the industry—and therefore to determine whether its 

limited approach to oversight and enforcement is appropriate. Nor has it 

made more than minimal efforts to provide information to consumers that 

would assist them in making more informed choices. Consumer education 

as a preventative tool takes on increased importance if the motor carrier 

administration is to pursue its course of limited oversight and enforcement. 

The motor carrier administration has recently recognized the need to be 

more active in this area and has outlined plans to increase its involvement. 

We are making recommendations for actions to better ensure that these 

actions are fully implemented and achieve the intended results.

Recommendations for 

Executive Action

We recommend that the Secretary of Transportation direct the 

Administrator of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration to 
Page 23 GAO-01-318 Consumer Protection in the Moving Industry

undertake activities that would help it better oversee the industry. These 

actions should include

• undertaking and completing the study of alternative dispute 

mechanisms required by the ICC Termination Act of 1995 and

• ensuring that the motor carrier administration’s division offices collect 

and maintain information on consumer complaints consistently and that 

the information be shared across division offices and with headquarters.

We further recommend that the Secretary direct the Administrator to 

determine the adequacy of its enforcement efforts. These actions should 

include

• assessing whether enforcement activities against household goods 

carriers are effective and sufficient and, if not, increase enforcement 

actions against interstate household goods carriers, as outlined in the 

motor carrier administration’s plans, and

• determining whether legislative changes are needed to supplement the 

Department’s efforts, including (1) authorizing the states to enforce 

federal statutes and regulations and (2) changing the federal statute 

limiting carriers’ liability with respect to interstate shipments of 

household goods. If such changes are needed, the Department should 

submit them to the Congress. This determination should be made after 

the other recommendations in this report have been implemented and 

sufficient time has passed to assess the effects of the Department’s 

actions.

We also recommend that the Secretary direct the Administrator to carry out 

public education efforts that will promote awareness of means that 

consumers can employ to protect themselves when they are moving their 

household goods across state lines and on what they can do when 

problems arise. These efforts should include

• reaching out to consumers, consumer and industry groups, and state 

governments and using Internet postings and other means, consistent 

with the motor carrier administration’s plans;

• notifying state consumer and law enforcement agencies and national 

consumer organizations that the motor carrier administration is 

responsible for regulating the interstate household goods industry;

• making information on the number and general nature of complaints 

made against individual carriers available to the public without 

disclosing the complainants’ identity; and
Page 24 GAO-01-318 Consumer Protection in the Moving Industry

• publicizing the results of the Department’s enforcement cases against 

household goods carriers.

Agency Comments and 

Our Evaluation

We provided the Department of Transportation with a draft of this report 

for review and comment. We obtained comments from departmental 

representatives, including the Director of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance. These 

representatives told us that the motor carrier administration recognizes its 

responsibility in the area of household goods consumer protection and has 

been endeavoring to do the best it can with the limited resources available. 

It will continue to work to the best of its ability, within established resource 

constraints, to effectively fulfill its responsibilities in this area. The officials 

indicated that the Department has received only a fraction of the resources 

ICC devoted to the area and has augmented its staffing to the degree it is 

able, while it continues to pursue the ambitious safety agenda set out 

before it with the motor carrier community. The representatives also told 

us that the motor carrier administration recently established a new 

approach to deal more effectively and comprehensively with issues in the 

household goods moving industry, particularly those involving carriers and 

brokers that have demonstrated persistent noncompliance with applicable 

economic and commercial regulations. They said that this approach will 

focus on educating consumers, tracking complaints, and formulating a 

more effective approach to regulatory enforcement.

We agree that the new approach adopted by the Department has the 

potential to improve oversight and enforcement over the household goods 

moving industry. However, since many of the initiatives are still in their 

early stages, we cannot predict the ultimate success of these endeavors. 

The Department will need to demonstrate to the Congress and to the public 

that it can follow through with its consumer protection efforts over the 

long term. The Department also made several technical and clarifying 

comments, which we incorporated where appropriate.

Finally, the Department did not comment on our recommendations. Our 

draft report contained a proposed recommendation that the motor carrier 

administration establish implementation and completion dates for actions 

contained in its plans to improve oversight and enforcement activities 

involving interstate household goods carriers. As discussed in this report, 

the motor carrier administration has developed these milestones and 

incorporated them into its plans. As a result, we deleted this 

recommendation from this report.
Page 25 GAO-01-318 Consumer Protection in the Moving Industry

We are sending copies of this report to congressional committees and 

subcommittees with responsibilities for transportation and consumer 

protection issues; the Honorable Norman Y. Mineta, Secretary of 

Transportation; Ms. Julie Anna Cirillo, Acting Deputy Administrator of the 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration; the Honorable Linda J. 

Morgan, Chairman of the Surface Transportation Board; and the Honorable 

Mitchell E. Daniels, Director of the Office of Management and Budget. We 

will make copies available to others upon request.

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please call me at 

(202) 512-2834. Key contributors to this report were Lori Adams, Helen 

Desaulniers, James Ratzenberger, Deena Richart, and William Sparling.

Phyllis F. Scheinberg

Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues
Page 26 GAO-01-318 Consumer Protection in the Moving Industry

Appendix I

Scope and Methodology ApApenednxidexiIs

To attempt to determine the extent of complaints in the interstate 

household goods moving industry, we obtained summary information from 

several sources. We did so because detailed records on the complaints 

were kept as paper records in individual offices where the complaints were 

filed. In addition, some sources could not readily provide information on 

whether complaints were for interstate or intrastate moves. From 12 motor 

carrier administration division offices in Arizona, California, Colorado, 

Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, 

Pennsylvania, and Texas, we obtained summary information from their 

Economic Complaint Registers. We selected these offices because they 

represent the states that (1) had the most interstate moves and, according 

to motor carrier administration officials, (2) reported the most problems 

with household goods movers. We did not verify the reliability of the data 

maintained in these registers. We also obtained summary complaint 

information and/or summary requests for arbitration from the Council of 

Better Business Bureaus and the American Moving and Storage 

Association. To determine the number of motor carriers that might be 

involved in interstate household goods moves, we obtained information 

from the Department of Transportation and from the American Moving and 

Storage Association. To determine the nature of the complaints, we 

interviewed federal and state officials and a number of industry and law 

enforcement and consumer protection organization officials. We relied on 

interviews because information on the nature of problems was not 

available without expending extraordinary efforts. We also reviewed the 

record for the 1998 hearing on consumer protection issues involving the 

household goods moving industry.1

To establish how consumer protection for this industry is provided, we 

determined the Department of Transportation’s role with respect to the 

household goods moving industry, as well as the roles of other federal 

agencies and the states. To do so, we reviewed the ICC Termination Act of 

1995 and the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999. We also 

reviewed the Department of Transportation’s applicable regulations, 

program guidance, and self-help packages provided to consumers. We 

discussed with motor carrier administration officials (at headquarters and 

in 14 division offices—the 12 previously mentioned, as well as those in New 

Hampshire and North Carolina) their duties and actions with respect to the 

1

Motor Carrier Economic Regulatory Issues, Hearing before the Subcommittee on Surface 

Transportation of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, House of 

Representatives (Aug. 5, 1998). 
Appendix I

Scope and Methodology

Page 27 GAO-01-318 Consumer Protection in the Moving Industry

household goods moving industry, including consumer complaint tracking, 

public education efforts, and enforcement efforts. We also contacted 

officials at the Surface Transportation Board and the Federal Trade 

Commission (FTC) to discuss their roles in consumer protection for this 

industry. In addition, we contacted agencies in 14 states to determine what 

activities they undertake with respect to this industry. (The organizations 

we contacted are listed at the end of this appendix.) We chose these states 

because they either had the most interstate moves or were identified 

through our discussions with federal agencies, industry associations, and 

consumer groups as those apparently experiencing the most problems with 

interstate moves. 

To assess the Department of Transportation’s consumer protection 

activities for the household goods moving industry, we reviewed the 

Department of Transportation’s documents and interviewed its officials on 

how it implemented its responsibilities. Topics included its overall 

regulation and enforcement philosophy, rulemaking, staffing, public 

education and outreach, complaint resolution, enforcement actions, and 

investigator training. We also reviewed and discussed with motor carrier 

administration officials the agency’s plans for increasing its activities in this 

area. In addition, we obtained information on the Department of 

Transportation’s Aviation Consumer Complaint Database for air travel 

complaint reporting and resolution. Finally, we met with a number of 

industry, consumer, and alternative dispute resolution organizations and 

with selected states to obtain their perspectives on the actions taken by 

and the effectiveness of the Department of Transportation in this area.

To identify issues surrounding an expansion of the states’ role with respect 

to the interstate moving industry, we contacted officials from federal, state, 

industry, consumer protection, and alternative dispute resolution 

organizations that are knowledgeable about the household goods moving 

industry and obtained their insights. We reviewed legislation and discussed 

with officials from FTC, state offices of the attorney general, and the 

National Association of Attorneys General how consumer protection is 

provided and enforced for the telemarketing industry. We also discussed 

consumer protection in consumer credit reporting with FTC and reviewed 

applicable legislation. We selected these industries because they were cited 

in an August 1998 congressional hearing on the Department of 

Transportation’s efforts to oversee the household goods moving industry as 

possible models for federal oversight.
Appendix I

Scope and Methodology

Page 28 GAO-01-318 Consumer Protection in the Moving Industry

We conducted our review from June 2000 through February 2001 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

Organizations 

Contacted

Federal Agencies

Department of Transportation

Aviation Consumer Protection Division

Federal Highway Administration

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

Federal Trade Commission

Surface Transportation Board

State Agencies

Arizona

Office of the Attorney General 

Corporation Commission

Department of Commerce

Department of Transportation

California 

Office of the Attorney General 

Public Utility Commission

Colorado

Office of the Attorney General

Department of Transportation

Public Utilities Commission

Florida

Office of the Attorney General

Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services
Appendix I

Scope and Methodology

Page 29 GAO-01-318 Consumer Protection in the Moving Industry

Georgia 

Office of the Attorney General

Governor’s Office of Consumer Affairs

Public Service Commission

Illinois

Office of the Attorney General

Commerce Commission

Missouri

Office of the Attorney General

Department of Transportation

North Carolina

Office of the Attorney General

Utilities Commission

New Hampshire

Office of the Attorney General

Department of Safety

New Jersey

Department of Law and Public Safety

Division of Consumer Affairs

New York

Office of the Attorney General

Department of Transportation

Ohio

Office of the Attorney General

Public Utilities Commission
Appendix I

Scope and Methodology

Page 30 GAO-01-318 Consumer Protection in the Moving Industry

Pennsylvania

Office of the Attorney General

Public Utility Commission

Texas

Office of the Attorney General

Department of Transportation

Industry Associations

American Moving and Storage Association

California Moving and Storage Association

Florida Movers and Warehousemen’s Association

Georgia Movers Association

Illinois Movers and Warehousemen’s Association

National Council of Moving Associations

Law Enforcement and Consumer Associations

American Association of Retired Persons

The Better Business Bureau of Chicago and Northern Illinois 

The Better Business Bureau of Los Angeles, California

The Better Business Bureau of Metropolitan New York 

Council of Better Business Bureaus

National Association of Consumer Agency Administrators

National Association of Attorneys General

Alternative Dispute Resolution Associations

American Arbitration Association

Fulcrum Institute Dispute Resolution Clinic

Interstate Dispute Resolution

Companies

Greenmount Moving and Storage, Inc.
Page 31 GAO-01-318 Consumer Protection in the Moving Industry

Appendix II

Complaints Recorded by Selected Federal and 

Industry Organizations ApendxiI

Complaints Recorded 

by the Federal Motor 

Carrier Safety 

Administration

The motor carrier administration does not centrally compile information 

on the number or nature of the consumer complaints it receives about 

interstate household goods carriers. However, motor carrier administration 

officials estimated that the agency’s division offices receive between 3,000 

and 4,000 complaint calls each year about interstate household goods 

carriers.1 We contacted 14 of the agency’s 52 division offices to obtain data 

on the number and types of complaints recorded. For the 12 division 

offices we contacted that collected this information, the number of 

complaints increased from 318 to 659 between 1996 and 1999—an increase 

of 107 percent. (See fig. 1.) About 75 percent of these complaints came 

from the division offices in three states—California, New Jersey, and New 

York. However, the number of consumer complaints is understated 

because the division offices said they did not record all complaints—such 

as those made by telephone. Two other division offices we contacted—in 

New Hampshire and North Carolina—did not have a database in place to 

record consumer complaints.

1

The division offices are responsible for receiving and recording consumer complaints.
Appendix II

Complaints Recorded by Selected Federal 

and Industry Organizations

Page 32 GAO-01-318 Consumer Protection in the Moving Industry

Figure 1: Complaints Recorded by Selected Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration Division Offices, January 1996-September 2000

Note: Data are from 12 motor carrier administration division offices. Year 2000 data are through 

September.

Source: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration.

Motor carrier administration data from 11 of the division offices we 

contacted on the nature of the complaints show that almost all—96 

percent—of the complaints concerned lost and damaged goods, untimely 

deliveries of goods, and rates and charges (e.g., overcharges or final 

charges that differed from original estimates).2

 However, the motor carrier 

administration’s records do not indicate the exact nature of each complaint 

recorded or how it was ultimately resolved. According to motor carrier 

administration officials, the most egregious complaints do not involve 

agents of major moving companies; most concern small companies that act 

as independent movers. They said most of these complaints come from two 

corridors: (1) the West Coast and (2) the New York/New Jersey area to 

Florida. Officials noted that the worst cases arise from the latter corridor 

2

The Illinois Division Office recorded more details on the nature of complaints than required 

in the complaint register. Because this office’s recording format was not consistent with 

that of the other division offices, its data could not be included in this summary.

318

367

659

0

150

300

450

600

750

1996 1997

520

1998 1999

498

2000

Calendar year

Total number of complaints
Appendix II

Complaints Recorded by Selected Federal 

and Industry Organizations

Page 33 GAO-01-318 Consumer Protection in the Moving Industry

and involve movers who prey on senior citizens—most of whom have never 

moved before and are not very “move savvy.” 

Motor carrier administration officials estimated that the dollar value of 

individual consumer claims against interstate moving companies has 

ranged anywhere from $500 to $10,000. An official with the American 

Moving and Storage Association indicated that the average amount paid on 

a claim is $610 (1995 data).

Complaints Recorded 

by the Council of 

Better Business 

Bureaus

The Council of Better Business Bureaus has also received an increasing 

number of complaints against household goods carriers. Complaints 

increased from 2,970 in calendar year 1996 to 5,097 in 1999, an increase of 

about 72 percent. (See fig. 2.) These data include both interstate and 

intrastate moves. The Senior Vice President of the Council’s Dispute 

Resolution Division told us that if the number of complaints against 

household goods carriers keeps rising, the moving industry could go into 

the top 10 most-complained-about industries in the next couple of years. 

Although the Council does not have readily available information on what 

types of complaints have been lodged, whether they involve interstate or 

intrastate carriers, or whether they are lodged against national or 

independent carriers,3

 Better Business Bureau officials in New York, 

Chicago, and Los Angeles told us that most complaints involve lost or 

damaged goods, untimely deliveries, or “low-balling” estimates. While the 

Chicago official estimated that the complaints lodged in that office were 

against an array of movers, the Los Angeles and New York officials 

estimated that the majority of the complaints received in their offices were 

against smaller, locally based movers.

3

This information is in the form of paper records at the over 160 local Bureau locations 

across the nation.
Appendix II

Complaints Recorded by Selected Federal 

and Industry Organizations

Page 34 GAO-01-318 Consumer Protection in the Moving Industry

Figure 2: Complaints Recorded by the Council of Better Business Bureaus, 1996-99

Note: The complaints reported are for both interstate and intrastate moves. 

Source: The Council of Better Business Bureaus.

Complaints and 

Requests for 

Arbitration Received 

by the American 

Moving and Storage 

Association

The American Moving and Storage Association also receives informal 

complaints from consumers about loss and damage, untimely service, 

inadequate service, and other matters. The Association advises consumers 

to file a claim with the mover but also notifies member carriers about any 

complaints received. The Association does not track the number of such 

complaints it receives or the nature of the complaints. However, for loss 

and damage claims that are not resolved to the consumer’s satisfaction, the 

Association keeps a record of how often consumers request an arbitration 

proceeding through its Dispute Settlement Program.4

 The number of 

requests for such arbitration increased from 96 in 1996 to 727 in 2000. (See 

2,970

3,736

4,922

5,097

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

1996 1997 1998 1999

Calendar year

Number of complaints

4

The Association sponsors a Certified Mover and Van Line Program for the purpose of 

promoting sound principles and acceptable practices in the industry. Members opting to 

join the program agree to arbitrate disputes meeting the Association’s guidelines. 

Additional arbitration programs are offered by organizations including the Council of Better 

Business Bureaus.
Appendix II

Complaints Recorded by Selected Federal 

and Industry Organizations

Page 35 GAO-01-318 Consumer Protection in the Moving Industry

fig. 3.) The Association does not keep track of whether the arbitration was 

completed or how the complaints were resolved. An Association official 

familiar with the arbitration program told us that it is difficult to determine 

why the number of requests for arbitration has increased, noting, however, 

that the program only started in 1996. 

Figure 3: Requests for Arbitration Received by the American Moving and Storage 

Association, 1996-2000

Source: American Moving and Storage Association.

532

372

96

727 712

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

Calendar year

Number of requests
Page 36 GAO-01-318 Consumer Protection in the Moving Industry

Appendix III

Role of States Regarding Consumer 

Complaints ApendxiI

Federal Law Limits 

State Law Claims 

Against Interstate 

Household Goods 

Carriers

The federal statute governing interstate carriers’ liability for loss and 

damage to goods (called the Carmack Amendment) limits state law claims 

against interstate household goods carriers.1

 Under the Carmack 

Amendment, carriers are liable, to the person entitled to recover under a 

receipt or bill of lading,2

 for actual loss or damage to property, but they may 

limit their liability to a declared value or other amount agreed to by the 

consumer as authorized by the Surface Transportation Board. The 

Carmack Amendment was enacted to impose a uniform scheme of liability 

that would eliminate the uncertainty associated with conflicting state laws 

on interstate shipments.

Courts have consistently held that the Carmack Amendment preempts a 

broad range of state law claims relating to the loss or damage of goods in 

interstate shipments.3

 Specifically, the Carmack Amendment bars 

individual consumers from asserting claims that would enlarge the carrier’s 

responsibility for loss or affect the grounds or measure of recovery, 

including those for violations of state consumer protection statutes, breach 

of contract, negligence, and fraud. However, the extent of the Carmack 

Amendment’s preemptive effect is not as clear. Emphasizing the goal of 

uniformity underlying the Carmack Amendment, some courts addressing 

state law claims asserted by individual consumers have held that the 

amendment essentially preempts every state law claim related to the 

contract of shipment.4

 Others have suggested that the Carmack 

Amendment does not preempt claims that stem from injuries separate and

1

Section 14706 of title 49, U.S. Code.

2

A bill of lading is a contract issued to a consumer by a household goods carrier listing the 

goods shipped, acknowledging their receipt, and promising delivery to the person named. 

3

See Charleston & Western Carolina Ry. Co. v. Varnville Furniture Co., 237 U.S. 597 (1915); 

Missouri, Kansas & Texas Ry. Co. of Texas v. Harris, 234 U.S. 412 (1914); Adams Express Co. 

v. Croninger, 226 U.S. 491 (1912); Rini v. United Van Lines, Inc., 104 F.3d 502 (1st Cir. 1997); 

Shao v. Link Cargo (Taiwan) Ltd., 986 F.2d 700 (4th Cir. 1993) (and cases cited therein); 

Underwriters at Lloyds of London v. North American Van Lines, 890 F.2d 1112 (10th Cir. 1989) 

(and cases cited therein).

4

See, e.g., Moffit v. Bekins Van Lines Co., 6 F.3d 305 (5th Cir. 1993); Arnell v. Mayflower 

Transit Inc., 968 F. Supp. 521 (D. Nev. 1997); Pietro Culotta Grapes, Ltd. v. Southern Pacific 

Transportation Co., 917 F. Supp. 713 (E.D. Cal. 1996).
Appendix III

Role of States Regarding Consumer 

Complaints

Page 37 GAO-01-318 Consumer Protection in the Moving Industry

distinct from loss or damage, but have identified little actionable conduct.5

Furthermore, there is some question about the states’ authority under 

consumer protection statutes to take enforcement action against interstate 

carriers for claims unrelated to loss or damage. 6

 Although at least one state 

has successfully taken action against an interstate household goods carrier 

under such statutes and other states are currently pursuing such action, 

officials from two states told us that they would not attempt to bring such 

cases because of the Carmack Amendment’s pervasive preemption of state 

law.

The states can provide for the regulation of intrastate household goods 

carriers, and some states have decided not to regulate the household goods 

moving industry. Of the 14 states we contacted, 11 regulate household 

goods carriers through a state agency, such as a public utilities commission 

or a department of transportation. The remaining three states (Florida, 

Arizona, and Colorado) do not regulate the industry. The states that 

regulate intrastate household goods carriers require them to follow 

regulations, such as those to file tariffs, file proof of insurance, provide 

educational material to potential consumers, maintain operating authority, 

and pass examinations on state regulations to obtain authority. While all 12 

state offices of the attorney general we contacted said they would bring 

cases against intrastate carriers for violations of state fraud or business fair 

practices laws, only 3 of the offices—in New York, Illinois, and 

Pennsylvania—were pursuing intrastate household goods cases. The 

states’ enforcement authority includes imposing temporary restraining 

orders and injunctions to halt practices, imposing monetary penalties, and 

revoking carriers’ authority to haul goods. For example, in three cases in 

which the State of New York showed the court that the mover was 

performing moves within New York without authority from the state, the 

5

See, e.g., Rini v. United Van Lines, Inc., 104 F.3d at 506 (stating that the Carmack 

Amendment would not have preempted a claim for intentional infliction of emotional 

distress); Gordon v. United Van Lines, Inc., 130 F.3d 282, 289 (7th Cir. 1997) (holding that a 

claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress was not preempted, but that the 

Carmack Amendment did preempt a claim of fraudulent inducement to contract on the 

grounds that such a claim was so closely related to the performance of the contract). See 

also Richter v. North American Van Lines, Inc., 110 F. Supp. 2d 406, 411 (D. Md. 2000) 

(explaining the logic favoring “a few state common law claims” such as intentional infliction 

of emotional distress or assault by a carrier on a consumer).

6

In response to an inquiry from a state official, the Department of Transportation advised 

that there was “no real legal precedent” regarding state enforcement actions unrelated to 

consumer loss or damage.
Appendix III

Role of States Regarding Consumer 

Complaints

Page 38 GAO-01-318 Consumer Protection in the Moving Industry

court agreed to order that the mover’s phone lines be disconnected to 

prevent continued illegal business activities.

Views on State 

Enforcement of 

Federal Statutes and 

Regulations

In the areas of telemarketing and fair credit reporting, the Congress has 

enabled the states to enforce federal statutes and regulations. According to 

our discussions with FTC officials, authorizing the states to enforce federal 

statutes and regulations can result in more investigations and enforcement 

actions if the states pursue cases that the Commission would consider too 

local to pursue, given available investigation and enforcement resources. 

The Commission allocates its investigative and law enforcement resources 

to address practices that cause the greatest harm. As a result, cases 

considered significant on a state or regional level may not spur the 

Commission to initiate an investigation. While the states may be required to 

use their enforcement resources in other areas, allowing 50 states to 

enforce federal and state consumer protection statutes has an enhanced 

deterrent effect not realized through FTC’s enforcement alone, according 

to Commission officials.

Consumer advocates and household goods moving industry 

representatives with whom we spoke see the states’ enforcement of federal 

statutes and regulations in very different ways. The industry position, as 

articulated by the American Moving and Storage Association, is that 

authorizing the states to enforce federal statutes and regulations will result 

in “ . . . a firestorm of inconsistent, varying interpretations of federal law 

that present the potential for injunctive relief, threatening the continued 

operations of legitimate movers.” Consumer advocates support an 

expansion of the potential for enforcement against unscrupulous interstate 

household goods carriers. Commenting on the similarities between 

telemarketing and interstate moving, one state official noted that the states 

are well positioned to identify the worst problems through their established 

consumer-complaint-gathering function. Similarly, while the National 

Association of Attorneys General does not have an official position on state 

regulation in household goods transportation, it generally supports federal 

legislative efforts to ensure that consumer protection laws are not 

preempted and that the states have the option to enforce both federal and 

state consumer protection laws in federal court. 

(348238) Letr

United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Presorted Standard

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. GI00