Freight Fraud Is Evolving. Carrier Vetting Has to Evolve With It.

In May 2026, FMCSA broadened the rollout of Motus, its new USDOT registration system. The system added new identity checks, business address validation, and other fraud-prevention controls to the registration process.

By August, FMCSA was warning customers about fraudulent emails and lookalike websites impersonating Motus itself. The messages directed recipients to a fake “New MOTUS Portal” and urged them to update their profiles.

That sequence captures the challenge facing carrier vetting today. Stronger controls can close familiar gaps, but trusted systems and communication channels can become targets too. Modern carrier vetting cannot stop at a single verification point.

Why Fraud Tactics Keep Changing

Carrier identity theft, misuse of operating authority, and carrier impersonation are not new problems. Recent fraud reporting shows how some organized theft groups are changing tactics as anti-fraud controls become more common.

CargoNet’s Q1 2026 analysis described impersonation-based theft becoming more systematic, including credential harvesting that targets business email, internet-based phone systems, and other industry applications. Its Q2 2026 analysis found that business email compromise remained a primary access point for sophisticated schemes, with compromised accounts potentially exposing shipment information, communication systems, contact directories, and transportation management tools.

CargoNet has also pointed to a broader vulnerability: many anti-fraud controls are concentrated around the shipment tender phase. That matters because a legitimate carrier can be selected and vetted, yet a shipment can still be manipulated afterward through compromised communication or impersonation.

Carrier approval helps establish which carrier is supposed to be moving the freight. It does not eliminate the need for verification as the load moves. For a fuller breakdown of common fraud schemes, including fake carrier services and double brokering, see Safeguarding Your Business Against Logistics Fraud.

Where Technology Strengthens Verification

Motus brings registration activity into a more centralized system and adds identity checks, business address validation, and real-time validation to the registration process. Those changes strengthen verification at the registration and account-access level.

But registration-level checks answer a different question from shipment-level verification. They do not, by themselves, confirm every email, phone call, pickup instruction, vehicle, or person involved in a specific load.

That is why modern carrier vetting needs multiple layers rather than one check performed at one point in time.

Where Technology Still Needs Human Review

Automated systems can flag many anomalies. The harder question is what those anomalies mean in context.

A new email address may be legitimate. A changed phone number may have an innocent explanation. A pickup instruction arriving through an unfamiliar channel may warrant verification without automatically disqualifying the carrier.

Human review adds another layer to that process. Technology can surface a discrepancy or risk signal. An experienced reviewer can compare it against other information, decide whether additional verification is needed, and determine whether the load should proceed while the issue is resolved.

Highway’s Q2 2026 Freight Fraud Index reported that communication-based attacks accounted for roughly half of its classified fraud vectors that quarter, including compromised inboxes, spoofed emails, account takeovers, and impersonation calls.

That type of activity extends beyond registration data alone. It puts more weight on continuous verification, communication controls, and the ability to investigate discrepancies in context.

Escalation decisions matter here too. A detail that looks slightly off is not always disqualifying, but someone still has to decide whether it warrants a second look, an independent confirmation, or a hold on the load while the issue is resolved. A system may surface the signal, but experienced review helps determine what that signal means in context.

What Modern Carrier Vetting Looks Like

Technology and human review are not competing approaches. They address different parts of the risk picture.

Registration and identity tools can strengthen checks around operating authority, business identity, registration information, and account access. Ongoing monitoring can surface changes after approval. Shipment-level verification can help confirm whether the equipment and identity presented for a particular load align with what was expected. Human review adds context when those signals conflict or something warrants a closer look.

First Call’s carrier-vetting process follows that layered approach through regulatory information, independent verification resources, internal carrier-performance data, ongoing monitoring, shipment-level verification, compliance review, and experienced human oversight.

No single check is expected to answer every question.

Fraud Changes. The Vetting Process Has to Keep Up.

The lesson from Motus being impersonated within months of its broader rollout is not that the system failed. It is that stronger controls can change where fraud pressure shows up.

Carrier vetting has to keep pace with changes in tactics, communication channels, identities, and shipment-level risk. That means using technology, ongoing monitoring, shipment-level verification, and experienced review together rather than relying on one approval decision to carry the entire load.

Want to see what a layered carrier-vetting process looks like in practice? Talk to our team.