A familiar company name can make an incoming message feel routine. The harder question is whether the person contacting your team is authorized to act for that company on this load.
That distinction was central to the Port TMS roundtable Freight Scams, Fraud Schemes and What the Bad Actors Have Planned for 2026. Mark Groves, Chris Jolly, and Michael from Highway discussed identity, communication, tracking, and why an initial carrier approval does not answer every question about a shipment.
The practical theme was to connect the carrier information with the transaction happening now.
Ask whether the move makes sense
Chris described asking carriers why a particular load fits their operation. Is it part of a regular lane? Does it connect to other freight? Does the proposed move fit what the brokerage knows about that carrier?
The panel discussed looking for mismatches between physical and digital behavior. An unexpected operating region or an inconsistency in the available information can be a reason to ask more questions.
An unusual lane is not proof of fraud. The value of the check is that it gives the team a specific issue to resolve before proceeding.
Verify the person behind the message
The discussion distinguished a valid carrier company from a verified user communicating on its behalf. The speakers described scenarios involving spoofed email addresses and compromised inboxes.
For the brokerage, that means the communication channel deserves attention alongside the carrier profile. Does the contact information match what has been verified? If a new person appears, how does the team confirm their authority?
One practical lesson from the examples is to use an independently established contact path when something does not fit. A professional signature or a recognizable company name should not settle an unresolved identity question.
Treat tracking as one source of information
Mark raised an example in which the apparent progress of a shipment did not reflect where the freight actually was. The panel used that discussion to emphasize that digital channels can be manipulated.
The useful takeaway is to avoid asking a single signal to answer every security question. Location information needs to be considered alongside the carrier, the contact, and the shipment details.
If those pieces disagree, the workflow needs an escalation step. A moving dot should not automatically close a concern raised elsewhere.
Make sure alerts lead to action
The panel discussed the difference between generating an alert and having someone investigate it. Michael described follow-up work when customers had not acted on shipment alerts.
A practical review for any brokerage is to ask who owns that step. Who sees the alert? Who decides what needs to be verified? How is the outcome recorded?
These questions matter most when the team is busy. An alert that remains unassigned can become another piece of information nobody has resolved.
Bring the shipper into the handoff
The discussion also addressed involving customers in freight security. The broker’s work and the facility’s pickup process need to connect.
That creates an opportunity for a clear conversation about what information the brokerage provides and what the shipper checks when the truck arrives. The goal is a shared understanding of what happens when something does not match.
The panel’s broader message was that technology and experienced people both have a role. Tools can surface information, while employees still need to pay attention, ask questions, and follow through.
Use the recording as a starting point to review one load from first contact to pickup. Look for the places where identity is assumed, information changes hands, or an alert needs an owner. Those are useful places to strengthen the process.
Watch the discussion: Freight Scams, Fraud Schemes and What the Bad Actors Have Planned for 2026