Compliance Checklists Motive Restricts Highway ELD Data Access
What the Dispute Means for Carriers, Brokers and Data Ownership
Motive’s decision to restrict Highway’s access to ELD data sparked concerns across the freight industry. This raised questions about data ownership, vendor relationships and whether trucking companies should have to bear the consequences of disputes between technology providers.
A recent dispute between Motive and Highway exposed a potentially significant weakness in the modern freight technology ecosystem. Brokers and carriers can depend on data connections controlled by companies that they do not directly contract with.
According to Highway, Motive restricted its API connection and indicated that Highway would need to compensate Motive for continued access to carrier ELD data. Highway declined a payment and said the resulting restriction reduced the frequency at which Motive data refreshed.
The dispute leaves behind a larger question for the trucking industry. Who should control access to the operational data generated by a carrier’s own equipment?
What Happened Between Motive and Highway?
Highway notified customers that Motive had placed new limits on the integration between the two platforms.
The dispute centered on access to electronic logging device (ELD) data, which brokers can use to verify carrier activity and provide additional visibility into freight movements.
Highway said Motive’s restriction resulted in slower data refreshes for Motive-equipped carriers. It also said certain features were affected, including location-based Load Lock Alerts and its Performance Guarantee for freight hauled by carriers using Motive equipment.
That created a problem that extended beyond the two technology companies.
A broker could select a legitimate carrier, the carrier could remain fully compliant, and yet the broker’s access to certain verification and tracking capabilities could be diminished because two vendors disagreed over the commercial terms governing an API connection.
That distinction is important.
The dispute did not mean Motive-equipped carriers stopped complying with federal ELD requirements. Rather, it affected how frequently their data was available through Highway’s private technology platform.
Why the Motive Data Dispute Raised Concerns
The most concerning aspect of the dispute was not necessarily that Motive wanted compensation for data access.
Companies routinely negotiate commercial terms for APIs, data feeds and integrations.
The bigger concern is what happens when those negotiations affect third parties.
Carriers pay for ELD equipment and services, while brokers increasingly rely on telematics information to verify equipment, monitor freight and manage risk. When an integration between two vendors breaks down, carriers and brokers can find themselves dealing with the consequences despite not being parties to the disagreement.
Highway’s notice specifically stated that Motive data would continue to be visible but would refresh less frequently. It also acknowledged that its alternative mobile-app tracking method was disconnected from the vehicle’s actual equipment.
For freight companies, that distinction matters.
A vehicle-linked data connection can provide a fundamentally different level of visibility than asking a driver to rely on a separate mobile application.
Did Motive Charge Highway for ELD Data?
According to Highway, Motive indicated that Highway would need to compensate it for access to carrier ELD data.
However, the exact commercial terms were not publicly disclosed at the time of the initial dispute.
FreightWaves reported that neither company disclosed what Motive allegedly requested, what the existing integration agreement required, or what negotiations had taken place between the companies. Motive also had not publicly explained its reasoning at the time of the original report.
That lack of information makes it difficult to independently determine whether Motive’s request was commercially reasonable.
It also makes it difficult to determine whether Highway’s refusal was reasonable.
What can be established is that the disagreement had practical consequences for data access.
The Problem With Putting Carriers in the Middle
For trucking companies, one of the most frustrating aspects of this type of dispute is that the carrier may have little control over it.
A carrier can pay for its Motive equipment, authorize its data connection and continue operating normally. Yet the availability of that data to another company can still depend on a separate commercial relationship between technology vendors.
That creates a complicated chain:
Carrier → ELD provider → API connection → Vetting/tracking platform → Broker
If one link in that chain changes its commercial terms, the carrier’s data can become less useful downstream.
That raises an increasingly important question for the trucking industry:
Should carriers’ operational data become a bargaining chip between technology companies?
There is no simple answer, particularly because ELD data has evolved beyond basic regulatory recordkeeping. The same information can now be used for carrier verification, fraud prevention, freight tracking, insurance decisions and risk management.
Konexial’s Carrier-Focused Approach
Konexial offers an example of a more carrier-focused approach to ELD technology. The platform is designed to give carriers and truckers practical control over their operational information while supporting compliance, fleet visibility and day-to-day efficiency. By emphasizing transparency, straightforward tools and customer support, Konexial has built a reputation as an ELD provider carriers can rely on. For trucking companies concerned about how their data is handled, working with a provider that prioritizes trust and long-term customer relationships can provide valuable peace of mind.
Highway’s Performance Guarantee Was Also Affected
The dispute had another significant consequence.
Highway said it could no longer back freight moved by Motive-equipped carriers under its Performance Guarantee.
The guarantee is designed to place Highway’s own financial responsibility behind certain carrier-verification decisions. Removing that protection changes the risk equation for brokers using carriers equipped with Motive hardware.
In practical terms, brokers could face a situation where a carrier remained legitimate but the broker had fewer technological assurances available through Highway.
That is an uncomfortable position for an industry already dealing with fraud, cargo theft and increasingly sophisticated identity manipulation.
Motive’s Financial Position Adds Context — But Not an Explanation
The timing of the dispute also attracted attention because Motive has been pursuing an initial public offering.
Motive filed publicly for an IPO in December 2025. Its registration statement reported $327.3 million in revenue for the nine months ending September 30, 2025, alongside a $138.5 million net loss.
Those numbers provide useful context, but they should not be interpreted as evidence that financial pressure caused the dispute.
There is no public evidence establishing that connection.
Still, the situation illustrates why the company’s approach to monetizing data access deserves scrutiny as Motive moves toward becoming a publicly traded company.
Technology companies increasingly view data as a valuable commercial asset.
The trucking industry, meanwhile, increasingly views that same data as infrastructure.
Those two perspectives can collide.
What This Means for Trucking Companies
For carriers using Motive, the immediate impact of the dispute appears to have been limited to the integration with Highway rather than the carrier’s underlying ELD compliance.
For brokers, however, the episode highlights the risks of relying too heavily on a single technology ecosystem.
Companies should consider:
- How many ELD providers their vetting platform supports
- Whether critical tracking features depend on third-party API agreements
- What happens if an ELD provider changes its API terms
- Whether alternative tracking methods are available
- Who ultimately controls access to the carrier’s operational data
- Whether a technology-provider dispute can remove a broker’s contractual protections
The fact that Highway integrates with hundreds of ELD providers also demonstrates that alternatives exist, although switching technology providers can create additional costs and operational friction.
The Bigger Issue: Who Owns Trucking Data?
The Motive-Highway dispute may ultimately be remembered less for the temporary disruption and more for the question it exposed.
ELD data is generated by carriers operating their trucks. But multiple technology companies can derive significant commercial value from that data.
As freight technology becomes more interconnected, the industry needs clearer expectations around data access, authorization, interoperability and commercial restrictions.
Carrier data should not become inaccessible simply because two technology vendors cannot agree on how an integration should be paid for.
At the same time, ELD providers have legitimate business interests in protecting their infrastructure and determining how third parties access their systems.
The challenge is finding a model that protects those interests without making carriers and brokers collateral damage in commercial disputes.
Bottom Line
The disagreement has been resolved, with both sides reaching an agreement to restore normal access for authorized users. The situation still raises broader concerns about how easily access to important operational information can be affected by disputes between technology companies.
Motive may have had its reasons for seeking compensation, while Highway had its own reasons for pushing back. But for carriers and brokers caught in the middle, the episode highlights an uncomfortable reality: when technology providers disagree, their customers can end up feeling the impact.
The immediate issue is settled, but the larger question remains—how much control should technology companies have over information that businesses rely on every day?
According to Highway, Motive restricted its API connection and indicated that Highway would need to compensate Motive for access to carrier ELD data. The companies later reached an agreement to restore the frequency of data access.
The dispute demonstrates how a disagreement between technology vendors can affect tools brokers use for carrier verification, tracking and risk management, even when the carrier itself has done nothing wrong.
Carriers using Motive should understand how their ELD data is authorized and where that data is being shared. The dispute highlights the importance of transparency and interoperability between ELD providers and third-party freight platforms.
