If you've spent any time in freight broker communities recently, you've probably seen the Kowalski Act come up in conversation. Reactions range from "this will destroy small brokerages" to "it's never going to pass" to "wait, what is it?"
The truth is somewhere in the middle, and regardless of whether the bill passes in its current form, the direction it represents matters. Let's break down what's actually in the legislation, what it would change for your operation, and — most importantly — what you can do right now to stay ahead of it.
The Background: Why This Bill Exists
The Kowalski Act didn't emerge from a vacuum. It's the latest chapter in a years-long debate about who bears responsibility when a broker selects a carrier that causes harm.
Historically, brokers operated under the assumption that they were intermediaries — matchmakers between shippers and carriers — without direct liability for carrier behavior. That assumption took a serious hit with the Miller v. C.H. Robinson Ninth Circuit ruling, which held that brokers can be liable under state negligence law for selecting unsafe carriers.
The Kowalski Act takes this a step further. Named after a family affected by a crash involving a negligently selected carrier, the bill would codify broker liability at the federal level and establish specific standards for what constitutes "reasonable" carrier vetting.
What the Bill Actually Proposes
At its core, the Kowalski Act would do three things.
First, it would establish a federal standard for broker liability in carrier selection. Rather than leaving it to a patchwork of state courts to decide when a broker is negligent, the bill would create a uniform set of expectations that apply nationwide.
Second, it would define minimum vetting requirements. Brokers would need to verify a carrier's operating authority, insurance coverage, safety record, and compliance history before tendering a load. The specifics are still being debated, but the framework goes well beyond the "check SAFER and move on" approach that many brokerages currently use.
Third, it would create a documentation mandate. Brokers wouldn't just need to vet carriers — they'd need to prove they did. The bill envisions a record-keeping requirement where brokerages maintain auditable evidence of their vetting decisions for each carrier they work with.
What This Would Change for Small Brokerages
For the top 100 brokerages — the ones already using enterprise vetting platforms with dedicated compliance teams — the Kowalski Act wouldn't change much operationally. They're already doing most of what the bill would require.
The impact falls heaviest on small and mid-size brokerages, the ones running 5 to 50 people, doing $2M to $50M in annual revenue. These are the operations where carrier vetting often means one person manually checking FMCSA records, maybe cross-referencing a DAT profile, and making a judgment call.
Under the Kowalski Act's framework, that informal process would likely be insufficient. Brokerages would need to demonstrate a systematic approach — consistent criteria applied to every carrier, documented checks, ongoing monitoring for changes in safety status or insurance coverage, and a clear audit trail.
For a 10-person brokerage without a dedicated compliance department, building that infrastructure from scratch would be a significant lift. The brokerages that are already using automated vetting tools would have a meaningful head start.
The "It Won't Pass" Argument
Plenty of people in the industry are betting the Kowalski Act never becomes law, or that it will be so heavily amended that the final version is toothless. That's a reasonable prediction — freight regulation moves slowly, and there are powerful interests on all sides of this debate.
But here's the thing: it doesn't matter whether this specific bill passes.
The Miller v. C.H. Robinson ruling is already established law in the Ninth Circuit. Similar cases are working through other circuits. The legal trend is unmistakably moving toward greater broker accountability for carrier selection. Whether that accountability comes from federal legislation, court precedent, or increased FMCSA enforcement, the end result is the same: brokers need a defensible, documented vetting process.
Waiting for the Kowalski Act to pass before upgrading your vetting practices is like waiting for the fire to reach your house before buying a smoke detector.
What You Should Be Doing Now
Whether you're worried about the Kowalski Act specifically or just want to future-proof your brokerage against increasing regulatory scrutiny, there are practical steps you can take today.
Standardize your criteria. Define what makes a carrier acceptable for your operation. What's your minimum threshold for out-of-service rates? How recent does their insurance need to be? What safety metrics do you actually look at? Write it down, apply it consistently, and make sure every dispatcher on your team is using the same playbook.
Automate what you can. Manual FMCSA checks are fine for a one-time snapshot, but they don't scale, and they don't catch changes after onboarding. A carrier that was safe when you vetted them six months ago might have had their insurance lapse, picked up a string of violations, or had their authority revoked since then. Continuous monitoring catches what one-time checks miss.
Document everything. If a regulator, attorney, or shipper ever asks you to demonstrate your vetting process for a specific carrier, can you produce that documentation? If the answer is "sort of" or "we'd need to dig through emails," that's a gap worth closing. Your vetting decisions, the data you reviewed, and the criteria you applied should all be logged and retrievable.
Build onboarding into your workflow. The Kowalski Act's emphasis on documented compliance means that carrier onboarding — collecting insurance certificates, verifying contacts, confirming equipment — becomes a first-class operational process rather than an afterthought. Digital onboarding workflows that capture this information upfront save enormous time on the back end.
For the specific warning signs of fraud, see 5 red flags of double brokering.
Monitor for changes. A carrier's safety profile isn't static. Authority status changes, insurance lapses, safety ratings shift, and contact information gets updated. If you're only checking a carrier once — at onboarding — you're missing everything that happens afterward. Set up alerts for the carriers in your network so you're the first to know when something changes, not the last.
The Bigger Picture
The Kowalski Act is a signal, not a surprise. The freight industry is moving toward greater transparency and accountability in carrier selection. Shippers are asking more questions about broker vetting practices. Insurers are tightening requirements. Courts are expanding liability.
For small and mid-size brokerages, this isn't something to fear — it's something to get ahead of. The brokerages that build rigorous, documented vetting processes now won't just be compliant when regulation catches up. They'll be more efficient, more trustworthy to shippers, and more resilient against the fraud that's plaguing the industry.
The SAFER Transport Act is advancing similar themes at the federal level.
The bar is rising. The brokerages that clear it early are the ones that will thrive.