1. Freight charges don’t disappear just because a broker failed

The starting point is simple: transportation performed must be paid for.
Oak Harbor Freight Lines, Inc. v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 513 F.3d 949, 954–55 (9th Cir. 2008).

2. Paying the broker does not automatically discharge the shipper

Absent a clear agreement releasing the shipper, payment to a broker does not bar the carrier’s claim.
Oak Harbor Freight Lines, Inc. v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 513 F.3d 949 (9th Cir. 2008).

3. The bill of lading remains the core freight contract

Despite modern logistics practices, courts still treat the bill of lading as the basic transportation contract governing liability for charges.
Southern Pac. Transp. Co. v. Commercial Metals Co., 456 U.S. 336, 342–43 (1982).

4. Acceptance of delivery can trigger consignee liability

A consignee that accepts delivery may become liable for freight charges, even without a direct contract with the carrier.
C.A.R. Transp. Brokerage Co. v. Darden Rests., Inc., 213 F.3d 474, 479–80 (9th Cir. 2000).

5. Broker status depends on conduct, not labels

Whether an entity is treated as a broker or a carrier turns on what it actually did—not what it called itself. Entities that assume responsibility for transportation risk being treated as carriers.
CGU Int’l Ins., PLC v. Keystone Lines Corp., 2004 WL 1047982, at *2–4 (N.D. Cal. May 5, 2004).

6. Consignee liability is recognized by statute and case law

Federal law expressly addresses consignee liability for freight charges, and courts analyze claims through that statutory framework alongside common-law principles.
49 U.S.C. § 13706(a); C.A.R. Transp. Brokerage Co. v. Darden Rests., Inc., 213 F.3d 474 (9th Cir. 2000).

7. “Prepaid” markings can create estoppel—but narrowly

A prepaid designation may estop a carrier from collecting again only where the consignee reasonably relied on it and paid in full.
EFCO Corp. v. U.S. Steel Corp., 2011 WL 280906, at *4–5 (N.D. Iowa Jan. 26, 2011).

8. Notice of nonpayment changes everything

Once a shipper or consignee is on notice that the broker is not paying, continued payment through the broker is done at their own risk.
Ranger Nationwide, Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 903 F.2d 1185, 1188–89 (8th Cir. 1990).

9. Lack of privity is not a guaranteed defense

Courts routinely reject “no contract with the carrier” defenses where shipping documents and acceptance establish liability.
Illinois Steel Co. v. Baltimore & Ohio R.R. Co., 320 U.S. 508, 512–13 (1944).

10. Freight cases are decided on paper, not promises

Bills of lading, rate confirmations, invoices, and PODs—rather than oral assurances—drive outcomes in unpaid freight disputes.
Southern Pac. Transp. Co. v. Commercial Metals Co., 456 U.S. 336 (1982).