Item 1A. Risk Factors
Item 1A. Risk Factors
Operational Risks
Increased severity or frequency of accidents and other claims or a material unfavorable development of existing claims. As noted above in Item 1, “ Business — Factors Significant to the Company ’ s Operations — Self-Insured Claims ,” potential liability associated with accidents in the trucking industry is severe and occurrences are unpredictable. Landstar retains liability through a self-insured retention for commercial trucking claims up to $5 million per occurrence. Historically, these third party insurance arrangements were based on policy year periods beginning on May 1 and ending on the subsequent April 30. Beginning with the policy year period commencing May 1, 2025, the Company and its third party insurance providers adjusted the applicable policy year period, beginning in 2026, to commence on June 1 and end on the subsequent May 31. All applicable third party insurance arrangements with a policy period ending April 30, 2026 have been amended to provide for a policy period ending May 31, 2026, as reflected below.
Effective May 1, 2023, the Company entered into a three year commercial auto liability insurance arrangement for losses incurred between $5 million and $10 million (the “2023 Initial Excess Policy”) with a third party insurance company. For commercial trucking claims incurred on or after May 1, 2023 through May 31, 2026, the 2023 Initial Excess Policy provides for an aggregate deductible of $18 million over the thirty-seven-month term ending May 31, 2026. After payment of the deductible, the 2023 Initial Excess Policy provides for a limit for a single loss of $5 million, with an aggregate limit of $15 million for the thirty-seven-month term ending May 31, 2026.
The Company also maintains third party insurance arrangements providing excess coverage for commercial trucking liabilities in excess of $10 million. These third party arrangements provide coverage on a per occurrence or aggregated basis. Over the past fifteen years, there has been a significant increase in the occurrence of trials in courts throughout the United States involving catastrophic injury and fatality claims against commercial motor carriers that have resulted in verdicts in excess of $10 million. Within the transportation logistics industry, these verdicts are often referred to as “Nuclear Verdicts.” The increase in Nuclear Verdicts has had a significant impact on the cost of commercial auto liability claims throughout the United States. Due to the increasing cost of commercial auto liability claims, the availability of excess coverage has significantly decreased, and the pricing associated with such excess coverage, to the extent available, has significantly increased. Since the annual policy year ended April 30, 2020, as compared to the annual policy year ending May 31, 2026, the Company experienced an increase of approximately $22 million, or approximately 400%, in the premiums charged by third party insurance companies to the Company for excess coverage for commercial trucking liabilities in excess of $10 million.
In addition to the significant increase in the cost to motor carriers relating to commercial auto liability claims throughout the United States, there has also been a very significant increase throughout the United States in the number of, and potential loss exposure associated with, claims asserted against freight brokers in connection with accidents involving motor carriers the freight broker has engaged and contracted with to haul a shipment. The claims asserted against freight brokers often involve claims of
14
Table of Contents
negligent selection of the motor carrier who was involved in the relevant accident. Within the transportation logistics industry, these matters are often referred to as “Broker Liability Claims.” For example, see the discussion of the Cabral Matter (as defined below) in Item 7, “ Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations — Legal Proceedings. ” There is currently significant legal uncertainty regarding Broker Liability Claims as state and federal courts across the United States are divided as to whether such claims are preempted by federal law under the FAAAA, or are subject to the “safety exception” under the FAAAA. The matter of Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC, in which the Company is not a party, is currently pending before the U.S. Supreme Court and may result in a ruling relating to federal preemption of Broker Liability Claims under the FAAAA. No assurances can be provided as to any such ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court, the timing thereof, or the impact any such ruling may have on pending or future Broker Liability Claims asserted against the Company, including the Cabral Matter.
Moreover, the Company from year to year manages the level of its financial exposure to commercial trucking claims in excess of $10 million, including through the use of additional self-insurance, deductibles, aggregate loss limits, quota shares and other structured arrangements with third party insurance companies, based on the availability of coverage within certain excess insurance coverage layers and estimated cost differentials between proposed premiums from third party insurance companies and historical and actuarially projected losses experienced by the Company at various levels of excess insurance coverage. For example, with respect to a single hypothetical claim in the amount of $65 million incurred during the annual policy year ending May 31, 2026, the Company would have an aggregate financial exposure of approximately $36 million.
Within the Company’s third party insurance arrangements providing excess coverage for commercial trucking liabilities, structured arrangements with third party reinsurers within a specific loss layer may include provisions that require additional payments of premium in the event of unfavorable loss experience or a refund of premium in the event of favorable loss experience. During the 2025 fiscal year, with respect to one such three-year commercial auto liability reinsurance arrangement relating to certain excess claims incurred between May 1, 2020 through April 30, 2023, the Company received $12,000,000 of cash payments from third party reinsurance providers in the form of a “no claims bonus” due to favorable loss experience with respect to claims incurred during the applicable policy period. As further described in Note 11 in the “Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements” in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, in connection with the Judgment (as defined below) in the Cabral Matter, the Company has recorded the “no claims bonus” within current insurance claims in the consolidated balance sheet as of December 27, 2025. The Company intends to vigorously appeal the Cabral Matter, including the Judgment; however, no assurances can be provided regarding whether the Company will ultimately be able to recognize a gain with respect to the “no claims bonus.” For more information about the Cabral Matter, see Item 7, “ Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations – Legal Proceedings .”
Furthermore, the Company’s third party insurance arrangements provide excess coverage up to an uppermost coverage layer, in excess of which the Company retains additional financial exposure. No assurances can be given that the availability of excess coverage for commercial trucking claims will not continue to deteriorate, that the pricing associated with such excess coverage, to the extent available, will not continue to increase, nor that insurance coverage from third party insurers for excess coverage of commercial trucking claims will even be available on commercially reasonable terms at certain levels. Moreover, the occurrence of a Nuclear Verdict, or the settlement of a catastrophic injury and/or fatality claim that could have otherwise resulted in a Nuclear Verdict, could have a material adverse effect on Landstar’s cost of insurance and claims and its results of operations.
As noted below in Item 1, “ Legal, Tax, Regulatory and Compliance Risks — Regulatory and legislative changes ,” several of the Operating Subsidiaries maintain a federal hazardous materials safety permit in connection with the Company’s transportation of hazardous substances. In the event the Company is involved in a spill or other accident involving hazardous substances, there is a release of hazardous materials while such hazardous materials are being transported by the Company, or Landstar is found to be in violation of or fail to comply with applicable environmental laws or regulations in connection with the transportation of hazardous materials, the Company could be subject to clean-up costs and liabilities, including substantial fines or penalties or civil and criminal liability, any of which could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business and results of operations.
The Company retains liability of up to $2,000,000 for each general liability claim, $250,000 for each workers’ compensation claim and $250,000 for each cargo claim. In addition, under reinsurance arrangements by Signature of certain risks of the Company’s BCO Independent Contractors, the Company retains liability of up to $500,000, $1,000,000 or $2,000,000 with respect to certain occupational accident claims and up to $750,000 with respect to certain workers’ compensation claims. The Company’s exposure to liability associated with accidents incurred by Truck Brokerage Carriers, railroads and air and ocean cargo carriers who transport freight on behalf of the Company is reduced by various legal defenses and other factors including the extent to which such carriers maintain their own insurance coverage.
15
Table of Contents
In recent years, the amount and sophistication of fraud and cargo theft throughout the freight transportation and logistics supply chain has significantly increased. In particular, “strategic” cargo theft refers to instances when bad actors incorporate deceptive tactics to commit cargo theft. Such tactics may involve the use of fraud to deceive shippers, brokers, and/or carriers using a combination of methods including identity theft and impersonation, fictitious track-and-trace information, fictitious proof of delivery information and fraudulent carrier schemes. The Company has experienced, and may continue to experience, increases in the amount of cargo theft, including strategic cargo theft, resulting in increased exposure to liability from cargo claims. The Company has also experienced, and may continue to experience, incidences of other types of supply chain fraud, for example the fraud referenced in Note 19 in the “Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements” in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.
A material increase in the frequency or severity of accidents, cargo claims, or workers’ compensation claims, claims in connection with the transportation of hazardous materials, or the material unfavorable development of existing claims could have a material adverse effect on Landstar’s business, cost of insurance and claims and its results of operations.
Dependence on third party insurance companies. The Company is dependent on a limited number of third party insurance companies to provide insurance coverage in excess of its self-insured retention amounts. Historically, the Company has maintained insurance coverage for commercial trucking claims in excess of its self-insured retention, up to various maximum amounts, with a limited number of third party insurance companies. In an attempt to manage the cost of insurance and claims, the Company has historically increased or decreased the level of its financial exposure to commercial trucking claims by increasing or decreasing its level of self-insured retention based on the estimated cost differential between proposed premiums from third party insurance companies and historical and actuarially projected losses experienced by the Company at various levels of self-insured retention. Similarly, in its excess insurance layers, the Company may increase or decrease the level of its financial exposure to commercial trucking claims, including through the use of additional self-insurance as well as deductibles, aggregate loss limits, quota shares and other arrangements with third party insurance companies, based on the estimated cost differential between proposed premiums from third party insurance companies and historical and actuarially projected losses experienced by the Company at various levels of excess insurance coverage. To the extent that the third party insurance companies propose increases to their premiums for coverage of commercial trucking claims, the Company may decide to pay such increased premiums or increase its financial exposure on an aggregate, per occurrence or other basis, including by increasing the amount of its self-insured retention. In fact, in recent years, several of the largest third party insurers providing excess coverage for commercial trucking claims in the United States announced that in light of increased severity trends related to the increase in losses attributable to unfavorable verdicts, they would no longer provide such coverage. Decisions by these third party insurers to exit this line of business have had a significant negative impact on the availability and pricing of excess coverage for commercial trucking claims in the United States. No assurances can be given that other third party insurers will not also decide to exit the market as a provider of excess coverage for commercial trucking claims in the United States, which could have a further negative effect on the availability and pricing of such coverage. Accordingly, no assurance can be given that insurance coverage from third party insurers for claims in excess of the Company’s current self-insured retentions will continue to be available on commercially reasonable terms.
Dependence on independent commission sales agents. As noted above in Item 1, “Business — Factors Significant to the Company’s Operations — Agent Network,” the Company markets its services primarily through independent commission sales agents. During fiscal year 2025, 457 agents generated revenue for Landstar of at least $1 million each, or in the aggregate approximately 95% of Landstar’s consolidated revenue. Included among these Million Dollar Agents, 77 agents generated at least $10,000,000 of Landstar revenue during the 2025 fiscal year, or in the aggregate approximately 68% of Landstar’s consolidated revenue. Of these larger agencies, two such Landstar independent commission sales agencies each generated over 10% of Landstar’s consolidated revenue, or in the aggregate approximately $994,000,000, or 21%, of Landstar’s consolidated revenue and approximately 16% of Landstar’s consolidated variable contribution in fiscal year 2025.
A number of these larger agencies, including the second largest of Landstar’s independent commission sales agents by revenue, maintain administrative operations in countries outside of North America where the risks may be different than in the United States or Canada due to geopolitical, legal or other risks associated with maintaining administrative operations in such foreign jurisdictions. There can be no assurance regarding the potential disruption and impact adverse geopolitical developments in these foreign jurisdictions could have on the ability of certain large independent commission sales agents to generate and maintain administrative operations in support of significant amounts of Landstar revenue. As disclosed in a Current Report on Form 8-K filed by the Company on February 28, 2022, the second largest Landstar independent commission sales agency by 2025 revenue referenced above, while based in the United States, has significant administrative operations located in Ukraine. The administrative operations of this agency were significantly disrupted during the onset of the Russian invasion of Ukraine and continue to be affected by the ongoing conflict. The Company also has another of its largest independent commission sales agencies, as measured by revenue, that is based in the United States but conducts a portion of its administrative operations in
16
Table of Contents
western Ukraine. Russian efforts to destroy infrastructure throughout Ukraine has impacted the availability of electricity and other basic utilities at various times throughout the country. The priority for Landstar and both of these agencies is the safety and well-being of these agencies’ Ukrainian workforces and their families. No assurances can be provided regarding the conflict between Russia and Ukraine and the extent of potential future operational disruption the conflict may have on either of these Landstar agencies and the related impact of these disruptions on the Company.
Landstar competes with motor carriers and other third parties for the services of independent commission sales agents. Landstar has historically experienced very limited agent turnover in the number of its Million Dollar Agents. There can be no assurances, however, that Landstar will continue to experience very limited turnover of its Million Dollar Agents in the future. Landstar’s contracts with its agents, including its Million Dollar Agents, are typically terminable without cause upon 10 to 30 days’ notice by either party and generally contain significant but not unqualified restrictive covenants limiting the ability of a former agent to compete with Landstar for a specified period of time post-termination, and other restrictive covenants. The loss of some of the Company’s Million Dollar Agents and/or a significant decrease in revenue generated by Million Dollar Agents could have a material adverse effect on Landstar, including its results of operations and revenue.
Dependence on third party capacity providers. As noted above in Item 1, “Business — Factors Significant to the Company’s Operations — Third Party Capacity,” Landstar does not own trucks or other transportation equipment other than trailing equipment and relies on third party capacity providers, including BCO Independent Contractors, Truck Brokerage Carriers, railroads and air and ocean cargo carriers, to transport freight for its customers. The Company competes with motor carriers and other third parties for the services of BCO Independent Contractors and other third party capacity providers. The market for qualified truck owner-operators and other third party truck capacity providers is very competitive among motor carriers, third party logistics companies and others and no assurances can be given that the Company will be able to maintain or expand the number of BCO Independent Contractors or other third party truck capacity providers. Additionally, the Company’s third party capacity providers other than BCO Independent Contractors can be expected, under certain circumstances, to charge higher prices to cover increased operating expenses, such as any increases in the cost of fuel, labor, equipment or insurance, and the Company’s operating income may decline without a corresponding increase in price to the customer. A significant decrease in available capacity provided by either the Company’s BCO Independent Contractors or other third party capacity providers, or increased rates charged by other third party capacity providers that cannot be passed through to customers, could have a material adverse effect on Landstar, including its results of operations and revenue.
Disruptions or failures in the Company’s computer systems; cyber and other information security incidents. As noted above in Item 1, “Business — Factors Significant to the Company’s Operations — Technology,” the Company’s information technology systems used in connection with its operations are located in Jacksonville, Florida and to a lesser extent in Rockford, Illinois. In addition, the Company utilizes several third party data centers throughout the United States. Landstar relies, in the regular course of its business, on the proper operation of its information technology systems to link its extensive network of customers, employees, agents and third party capacity providers, including its BCO Independent Contractors. Moreover, a majority of the Company’s employees work remotely or on a hybrid basis. Although the Company has redundant systems for its critical operations, any significant disruption or failure of its technology systems or those of third party data centers on which it relies could significantly disrupt the Company’s operations and impose significant costs on the Company. Moreover, it is critical that the data processed by or stored in the Company’s information technology systems or otherwise in the Company’s possession remain confidential, as it often includes confidential, proprietary and/or competitively sensitive information regarding our customers, employees, agents and third party capacity providers, key financial and operational results and statistics, and our strategic plans, including technology innovations, developments and enhancements. Cyber incidents that impact the security, availability, reliability, speed, accuracy or other proper functioning of these systems and data, including outages, computer viruses, break-ins and similar disruptions, could have a significant impact on our operations. Accordingly, information security and the continued development and enhancement of the controls and processes designed to protect our systems, computers, software, data and networks from attack, damage or unauthorized access, including from AI enabled attacks, remain a priority for us. Our information systems and those of our third party service providers have been, and will likely continue to be, targeted by or subject to viruses, malware or other malicious codes, unauthorized access, cyber-attacks, cyber frauds, ransomware or other unauthorized occurrences which jeopardize the confidentiality, integrity or availability of our information or information systems. Cybersecurity threats are rapidly evolving and those threats and the means for obtaining access to our systems are becoming increasingly sophisticated. Cybersecurity threats can originate from a wide variety of sources including terrorists, nation states, financially motivated actors, hacktivists, internal actors, or third parties, such as external service providers or other third parties who may use an external service provider as a conduit to access our systems, and the techniques used change frequently and often are not recognized until after they have been launched. The rapid evolution and increased adoption of artificial intelligence technologies may intensify our cybersecurity risks including the deployment of artificial intelligence technologies by threat actors. Although we
17
Table of Contents
believe that we have robust security procedures and other safeguards in place, as threats continue to evolve, we may be required to expend additional resources to continue to enhance our information security measures and/or to investigate and remediate any security vulnerabilities. At any given time, we face known and unknown cybersecurity risks and threats that are not fully mitigated, and we may discover vulnerabilities as we continuously work to enhance our cybersecurity risk management program. A significant incident, including system failure, security breach, disruption by malware or ransomware, or other damage, could interrupt or delay our operations, damage our reputation with customers, agents, third party capacity providers, employees, vendors, investors or other stakeholders, cause a loss of customers, agents and/or third party capacity providers, expose us to a risk of loss or litigation, and/or cause us to incur significant time and expense to remedy such an event, any of which could have a material adverse impact on our results of operations and financial condition.
Although the Company maintains cybersecurity and business interruption insurance, the Company’s insurance may not be adequate to cover all losses that may be incurred in the event of a significant disruption or failure of its information technology systems. In addition, cybersecurity and business interruption insurance could in the future become more expensive and difficult to maintain and may not be available on commercially reasonable terms or at all.
Dependence on key vendors. As described above under “ Dependence on third party insurance companies ” and “ Disruptions or failures in the Company’s computer systems; cyber and other information security incidents, ” the Company is dependent on certain vendors, including third party insurance companies, third party data center providers, third party information technology application providers and third party payment disbursement providers. Any inability to negotiate satisfactory terms with one of these key vendors or any other significant disruption to or termination of a relationship with one of these key vendors could disrupt the Company’s operations and impose significant costs on the Company.
Adoption of artificial intelligence (“AI”). The Company uses, and will continue to expand its use of, machine learning and AI technologies to deliver services and operate its business. If the Company fails to successfully integrate AI into its digital ecosystem and business processes, or if it fails to keep pace with rapidly evolving AI technological developments, including attracting and retaining talented AI developers and programmers and cybersecurity personnel, the Company may face a competitive disadvantage. At the same time, the use or offering of AI technologies may result in new or expanded risks and liabilities, including enhanced government or regulatory scrutiny, litigation, privacy and compliance issues, ethical or confidentiality concerns, reputational harm, and security risks. It is not possible to predict all of the risks related to the use of AI, and changes in laws, rules, directives, and regulations governing the use of AI may adversely affect the Company’s ability to develop and use AI or subject it to legal liability. The cost of complying with laws and regulations governing AI could be significant and could increase our operating expenses, which could adversely affect our business, financial condition, and results of operations. Further, market demand and acceptance of AI technologies, including by our independent commission sales agents and BCO Independent Contractors, are uncertain, and we may be unsuccessful in efforts to further incorporate AI into our ecosystem of digital tools that are designed to: (i) assist Landstar independent commission sales agents in efficiently sourcing capacity, pricing transportation services and managing and analyzing the performance of their independent businesses, (ii) assist customers in meeting their transportation needs, (iii) assist third party capacity providers in identifying desirable freight opportunities and operating their independent businesses, and (iv) improve operational and administrative efficiency throughout the Company.
Acquisitions, Divestitures and Investments. The Company periodically considers acquisitions and equity investments that it believes are strategically important based on the potential that any such acquisition or investment candidate would further strengthen the Company’s strategic goals and service offerings. The Company makes no assurance that it will be able to successfully achieve its strategic goals as it relates to any such acquisition or investment. Further, the Company may have difficulties integrating acquired companies or efficiently managing divestitures. For potential acquisitions, success may depend upon efficiently integrating the acquired business into our existing systems and operations. If we complete a large acquisition or multiple acquisitions within a short period of time, we may experience heightened difficulties integrating the acquired companies. The Company would also be required to integrate these acquired businesses into our internal control environment, which may present challenges that are different than those presented by organic growth and that may be difficult to manage. If we are unable to successfully integrate and grow any acquired businesses and to realize contemplated revenue synergies and cost savings from such acquisitions, our business, prospects, results of operations, financial position, and cash flows could be materially and adversely affected.
During 2017, the Company established Landstar Metro, S.A.P.I. de C.V. (“Landstar Metro”), which acquired substantially all of the assets of the asset-light transportation logistics business of Fletes Avella, S.A. de C.V. Landstar Metro provides freight and logistics services within Mexico and in conjunction with Landstar’s U.S.-Mexico cross-border services. The Company’s initial investment in Landstar Metro was approximately $8.5 million. The carrying value of the Company’s investment in Landstar
18
Table of Contents
Metro, as of December 27, 2025, was approximately $6.5 million, reflecting additional investment and the results of operations of Landstar Metro since inception, less non-cash impairment charges. Landstar Metro is subject to certain risks arising from doing business in Mexico, including: changes in Mexico’s economic strength; changes in trade agreements, US-Mexico trade relations, or the imposition of tariffs on imports from Mexico and related retaliatory tariffs that may be imposed by the Mexican government; disruptions related to port of entry restrictions; difficulties in enforcing contractual obligations; foreign currency fluctuations; theft or vandalism of equipment; and social, political, and economic instability. As previously disclosed in a Current Report on Form 8-K, filed with the SEC on August 13, 2025, in connection with an annual strategic review of the Company’s operations, the Company determined that Landstar Metro has not been able to meet the Company’s strategic or operational goals and expectations, and, in connection therewith, the Company entered into an arrangement with a financial advisor to actively market Landstar Metro and consider strategic alternatives for this business, which may involve a sale or other disposition in whole or in part of Landstar Metro. No assurances can be provided regarding any potential sale or other disposition of Landstar Metro and whether any additional non-cash impairment charges or other additional charges and expenses will be incurred by the Company in connection with this sale process or upon any ultimate disposition of Landstar Metro.
Economic, Competitive and Industry Risks
Decreased demand for transportation services; U.S. trade relationships and potential or imposed tariffs. The transportation industry historically has experienced cyclical financial results as a result of slowdowns in economic activity, the business cycles of customers, and other economic factors beyond Landstar’s control. If a slowdown in economic activity or a downturn in the Company’s customers’ business cycles causes a reduction in the volume of freight shipped by those customers, the Company’s operating results could be materially adversely affected.
Moreover, Landstar hauls a significant number of shipments that have either been imported into the United States or are destined for export from the United States. There is significant uncertainty in the marketplace as to the potential actions of the U.S. government with respect to international trade policy, and the impact of tariffs may significantly adversely impact our customers, our industry, and our business. The U.S. government has made significant changes in U.S. trade policy, including the imposition on April 2, 2025, of a baseline tariff of 10% on product imports from almost all countries and individualized higher tariffs on certain other countries. While the announcement of the tariffs has been followed by announcements of limited exceptions and temporary pauses, certain foreign governments either have taken or are threatening to take retaliatory actions in response. The changes in U.S. trade policy and tariffs have caused uncertainty and volatility in financial markets. Further, there is potential for significant disruption with respect to trade between the United States and, respectively, Mexico and Canada, in connection with the anticipated review in 2026 of the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement and related potential impacts on trade, tariffs and border duties and taxes throughout North America. Moreover, on February 20, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the U.S. government cannot use the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (“IEEPA”) to impose tariffs, overturning certain recent tariffs announced throughout 2025, including those on global imports from China, Canada and Mexico. This decision creates uncertainty about the immediate path forward for many supply chains, as billions of dollars in duties are now in question and the process for potential refunds remains unclear. Further, not all tariffs announced throughout 2025 will be impacted by this U.S. Supreme Court decision since many tariffs were imposed under other legal authorities that remain in effect and new tariffs may continue to be implemented through these other legal authorities. Tariffs or other trade restrictions may lead to continuing uncertainty and volatility in U.S. and global financial and economic conditions, declining consumer confidence, inflation or an economic slowdown. These tariffs or other trade restrictions, including corresponding actions taken by other countries in response to U.S. governmental actions or continuing uncertainty around the timing, scope, level, magnitude, duration and product range of tariffs, could have an adverse economic impact in the markets in which the Company operates, could cause reduced demand for the Company’s services and a reduction in the volume of shipments transported by the Company’s network, and could have a material adverse effect on Landstar’s results of operations.
Substantial industry competition. As noted above in Item 1, “Business — Factors Significant to the Company’s Operations — Competition,” Landstar competes primarily in the transportation and logistics services industry. This industry is extremely competitive and fragmented. Landstar competes primarily with truckload carriers, intermodal transportation service providers, railroads, less-than-truckload carriers, third party logistics companies, freight brokers and other asset-light transportation and logistics service providers. Management believes that competition for the freight transported by the Company is based on service, efficiency, safety and freight rates, which are influenced significantly by the economic environment, particularly the amount of available transportation capacity and freight demand. In recent years, the use of technology and the implementation of technology-based innovations, which may increasingly incorporate AI, have become increasingly important to compete within the transportation and logistics industry. In particular, management believes leadership in the development, operation and support of an ecosystem of digital technologies and applications is an ongoing part of providing high quality service. The failure of the Company to maintain or enhance its technology ecosystem in response to changing demands from customers, agents, and capacity providers could have a significant adverse impact on Landstar’s ability to compete for customers, agents and capacity providers in the transportation and logistics industry.
19
Table of Contents
In addition, competition in our industry, historically, has created downward pressure on freight rates. Many large shippers use 3PLs other than the Company to outsource the management and coordination of their transportation needs rather than directly arrange for transportation services with carriers. As noted above, there were eight transportation service providers, including 3PLs, included in the Company’s top 25 customers for the fiscal year ended December 27, 2025. Usage by large shippers of 3PLs often provides carriers, such as the Company, with a less direct relationship with the shipper and, as a result, may increase pressure on freight rates while making it more difficult for the Company to compete primarily based on service and efficiency. A prolonged decrease in freight rates could have a material adverse effect on Landstar, including its revenue and operating income.
Legal, Tax, Regulatory and Compliance Risks
Status of independent contractors. For many years, the topic of the classification of individuals as employees or independent contractors has garnered significant attention among federal and state regulators as well as the plaintiffs’ bar. Various legislative or regulatory proposals have been introduced at the federal and state levels that may affect the classification status of individuals as independent contractors or employees for either employment tax purposes (e.g., withholding, social security, Medicare and unemployment taxes) or other benefits available to employees (most notably, workers’ compensation benefits). Certain states (most prominently, California) have experienced significant activity by tax and other regulators and numerous class action lawsuits filed against transportation companies that engage independent contractors.
There are many different tests and standards that may apply to the determination of whether a relationship is that of an independent contractor or one of employment. For example, different standards may be applied by the Internal Revenue Service, the U.S. Department of Labor, the National Labor Relations Board, state unemployment agencies, state departments of labor, state taxing authorities, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, state discrimination or disability benefit administrators and state workers compensation boards, among others. For federal tax purposes, most individuals are classified as employees or independent contractors based on a multi-factor “common-law” analysis rather than any definition found in the Internal Revenue Code or Internal Revenue Service regulations. In addition, under Section 530 of the Revenue Act of 1978, a taxpayer that meets certain criteria may treat an individual as an independent contractor for employment tax purposes if the taxpayer has been audited without being told to treat similarly situated workers as employees, if the taxpayer has received a ruling from the Internal Revenue Service or a court decision affirming the taxpayer’s treatment of the individual as an independent contractor, or if the taxpayer is following a long-standing recognized practice.
The Company classifies its BCO Independent Contractors and independent commission sales agents as independent contractors for all purposes, including employment tax and employee benefits. There can be no assurance that legislative, judicial, administrative or regulatory (including tax) authorities will not introduce proposals or assert interpretations of existing rules and regulations that would change the employee/independent contractor classification of BCO Independent Contractors or independent commission sales agents doing business with the Company. Certain states, most notably California, have enacted laws codifying the strict “ABC” test for purposes of determining a worker’s status as an independent contractor or employee under that state’s law. Versions of the ABC test have existed in a number of other states over the years and have been challenged in various courts as violating the federal government’s exclusive right to regulate trucking in certain areas of law and interstate commerce. The Company monitors these laws and what steps may be necessary or advisable to adapt to a changing legal and regulatory environment. Nevertheless, there remains significant uncertainty regarding how these types of laws will be interpreted and enforced by state and local governments as well as by courts.
Potential changes, if any, that could impact the legal classification of the independent contractor relationship between the Company and BCO Independent Contractors or independent commission sales agents could have a material adverse effect on Landstar’s operating model. Further, the costs associated with any such potential changes could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s results of operations and financial condition if Landstar were unable to pass through to its customers an increase in price corresponding to such increased costs. Moreover, class action litigation in this area against other transportation companies has resulted in significant damage awards and/or monetary settlements for workers who have been allegedly misclassified as independent contractors and the legal and other related expenses associated with litigating these cases can be substantial.
Regulatory and legislative changes. As noted above in Item 1, “Business — Factors Significant to the Company’s Operations — Regulation,” certain of the Operating Subsidiaries are motor carriers and/or property brokers authorized to arrange for transportation services by motor carriers which are regulated by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (“FMCSA”), an agency of the U.S. Department of Transportation, and by various state agencies. Several of the Operating Subsidiaries maintain a federal hazardous materials safety permit and, as a result, have an increased risk of compliance review by the FMCSA. Certain of the Operating Subsidiaries are licensed as Ocean Transportation Intermediaries by the U.S. Federal Maritime Commission as non-vessel-operating common carriers and/or as ocean freight forwarders. The Company’s air transportation activities in the United States are subject to regulation by the U.S. Department of Transportation as an indirect air carrier. One of the Company’s
20
Table of Contents
subsidiaries is licensed by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security through the Bureau of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“U.S. Customs”) as a customs broker. The Company is also subject to regulations and requirements relating to safety and security promulgated by, among others, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security through U.S. Customs and the Transportation Security Administration, the Canada Border Services Agency and various state and local agencies and port authorities.
The transportation industry is subject to other potential regulatory and legislative changes (such as the possibility of more stringent environmental, climate change and/or safety/security regulations, limits on vehicle weight and size and regulations relating to the health and wellness of commercial truck operators) that may affect the economics of the industry by requiring changes in operating practices, by changing the demand for motor carrier services or the cost of providing truckload or other transportation or logistics services, or by adversely impacting the number of available commercial truck operators.
In particular, the FMCSA may propose regulatory changes that affect the operation of commercial motor carriers across the United States. For example, effective May 20, 2025, the FMCSA established a new enforcement policy with respect to English language proficiency (“ELP”) requirements applicable to commercial motor vehicle drivers and the ability of such drivers to communicate effectively with law enforcement and understand highway traffic signs throughout the United States. In 2025, the FMCSA also proposed amendments to federal regulations applicable to the issuance by State Driver’s Licensing Agencies (“SDLAs”) of CDLs to foreign-domiciled individuals in order to significantly limit the authority of SDLAs to issue and renew CDLs with respect to individuals domiciled in a foreign jurisdiction and/or who do not maintain a lawful immigration status in the United States. It is difficult to predict in what form FMCSA regulations may be implemented, modified or enforced and what impact any such regulations may have on motor carrier operations or the aggregate number of trucks that provide hauling capacity to the Company. No assurances can be given with respect to what impact new or revised motor carrier oversight programs implemented by the FMCSA could have on the Company, its motor carrier operations or the aggregate number of trucks that provide hauling capacity to the Company.
Regulations focused on diesel emissions and other air quality matters. Focus on diesel emissions, climate change and related air quality matters has led to efforts by federal, state and local governmental agencies to support legislation and regulations to limit the amount of carbon emissions, including emissions created by diesel engines utilized in tractors such as those operated by the Company’s BCO Independent Contractors and Truck Brokerage Carriers. Moreover, federal, state and local governmental agencies may also focus on regulation in relation to trailing equipment specifications in an effort to achieve, among other things, lower carbon emissions. For example, the California Air Resources Board (“CARB”) has implemented regulations that restrict the ability of certain tractors and trailers from operating in California and that impose emission standards on nearly all diesel-fueled trucks with gross vehicle weight ratings in excess of 14,000 lbs. that operate in California. Moreover, these emission standards have become increasingly stringent over time. As of January 1, 2023, nearly all diesel-fueled trucks with gross vehicle weight ratings in excess of 14,000 lbs. that operate in California are required to have a 2010 or newer model year engine. No assurances can be given with respect to the extent BCO Independent Contractors will choose to become CARB-compliant by purchasing a new or used CARB-compliant tractor, replacing the engine in their existing tractor with a CARB-compliant engine or performing an exhaust retrofit of their existing tractor by installing a particulate matter filter. Accordingly, many of the Company’s BCO Independent Contractors may choose not to haul loads that would require travel within California, which could affect the ability of the Company to service customer freight needs for freight originating from, delivering to or traveling through California. Furthermore, increased regulation of tractor or trailing equipment specifications, including emissions created by diesel engines, could create substantial costs for the Company’s third party capacity providers and, in turn, increase the cost of purchased transportation to the Company. An increase in the costs to purchase, lease or maintain tractor or trailing equipment or in purchased transportation cost caused by existing or new regulations without a corresponding increase in price to the customer could adversely affect Landstar, including its results of operations and financial condition.
Regulations requiring the purchase and use of zero-emission vehicles (“ZEVs”). Currently, the long-haul trucking industry in North America is diesel-fuel based and long-haul trucking operations powered by electricity, natural gas, or hydrogen-based powertrains rather than diesel are not commercially feasible at scale in North America. Significant challenges remain with respect to the economic feasibility of these trucks and the further development of this technology is necessary considering power, torque, range, efficiency and other aspects of long-haul trucking operations. Moreover, the extensive nationwide charging/fueling infrastructure and maintenance network that would be necessary to support such operations does not exist. Nevertheless, federal, state and local governmental agencies may engage in efforts to support legislation and regulations mandating the transition of diesel-fuel based commercial motor vehicles, such as Class 8 tractors operated by the Company’s BCO Independent Contractors and Truck Brokerage Carriers, to ZEVs.
21
Table of Contents
Mandates requiring the transition to ZEVs would create substantial costs for the Company’s third party capacity providers and, in turn, increase the cost of purchased transportation to the Company. An increase in the costs to purchase, lease or maintain tractor equipment or in purchased transportation cost caused by existing or new regulations without a corresponding increase in price to the customer could adversely affect Landstar, including its results of operations and financial condition.
Moreover, irrespective of the enactment of these types of regulations, no assurances can be provided that the technology advancements that will need to occur to make ZEVs commercially viable for long-haul trucking or the extensive nationwide charging/fueling infrastructure and maintenance network that would be necessary to support such operations will develop in the time frame that would be necessary to enable efforts to comply with legislative or regulatory mandates requiring the transition of diesel fuel-based vehicles to ZEVs. It is not expected that long-haul trucking operations powered by electricity, natural gas, or hydrogen-based powertrains rather than diesel will become commercially viable at scale throughout North America in the next five years. However, as various technology alternatives continue to develop and mature and investment in infrastructure continues, local or regional service in certain geographic areas utilizing Class 8 tractors powered by electricity, natural gas, or hydrogen-based powertrains may become commercially viable in such time frame. Landstar intends to continue to actively monitor developments in the trucking industry related to the design, manufacture, operation, and support of heavy-duty trucks powered by electricity, natural gas, or hydrogen-based powertrains in order to consider the implementation of initiatives involving those technologies, as those technologies and the related infrastructure needed to support them may mature in the future. An increase in costs to implement these initiatives without a corresponding increase in price to the customer could adversely affect Landstar, including its results of operations and financial condition.
Supply Chain Fraud Matter. As disclosed in a Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the SEC on April 2, 2025 and the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the 2025 first quarter, filed with the SEC on May 13, 2025, during the last week of the Company’s 2025 first fiscal quarter, the Company identified a supply chain fraud relating to the Company’s international freight forwarding operations (the “Supply Chain Fraud Matter”). The Supply Chain Fraud Matter did not involve the Company’s core North American truckload services. The Company’s financial results for the fiscal year ended December 27, 2025 included a $4.8 million pre-tax expense, or $0.10 per basic and diluted share, relating to this matter. This expense reflected the total anticipated aggregate adverse financial impact to Landstar relating to the fraud, net of certain actual and anticipated recoveries and before taking into account the cost of legal and other professional fees as well as additional potential recoveries in the future. No assurance can be provided with respect to the Company’s ability to collect anticipated recoveries relating to the Supply Chain Fraud Matter or the cost of legal and other professional fees that may be incurred by the Company in the future in connection with such collection efforts related to the Supply Chain Fraud Matter. The inability of the Company to recover additional amounts relating to the Supply Chain Fraud Matter could impose additional adverse financial impact and costs on the Company.
Potential changes in taxes. From time to time, various legislative proposals are introduced to increase federal, state, or local taxes. The Company cannot predict whether, or in what form, any increase in corporate income tax rates, state tax rates, taxes related to the procurement of insurance, motor fuel tax rates or other tax rates applicable to the transportation services provided by the Company will be enacted and, if enacted, how such increased tax rates may impact the Company. As an example, for every 100 basis point increase in the U.S. corporate income tax rate, the Company would recognize a one-time tax charge of approximately $1,000,000 in connection with revaluing its ending net deferred tax liabilities at December 27, 2025. With respect to potential increases in fuel and similar taxes, it is unclear whether or not the Company’s Truck Brokerage Carriers would attempt to pass the increase on to the Company or if the Company will be able to reflect this potential increased cost of capacity, if any, in prices to customers. Any such increase in fuel taxes, without a corresponding increase in price to the customer, could have a material adverse effect on Landstar, including its results of operations and financial condition. Moreover, competition from other transportation service companies including those that provide non-trucking modes of transportation would likely increase if state or federal taxes on fuel were to increase without a corresponding increase in taxes imposed upon other modes of transportation.
On August 16, 2022, the Inflation Reduction Act was signed into law and established a one percent excise tax on stock repurchases made by publicly traded U.S. corporations. This provision was effective for tax years beginning after December 31, 2022. Accrued excise tax of $1,762,000 was included in other current liabilities in the consolidated balance sheet at December 27, 2025. The excise tax could have an adverse effect on the Company’s cash flows in future years.
General Risk Factors
Intellectual property. The Company uses both internally developed and purchased technology in conducting its business. Whether internally developed or purchased, it is possible that the use of these technologies could be claimed to infringe upon or violate the intellectual property rights of third parties. In the event that a claim is made against the Company by a third party for the infringement of intellectual property rights, any settlement or adverse judgment against the Company either in the form of increased costs of licensing or a cease and desist order in using the technology could have an adverse effect on the Company’s business and its results of operations.
22
Table of Contents