Repossession forwarders now handle roughly two-thirds of all vehicle repossessions in the United States. Three separate legal and regulatory questions have converged on this industry layer in 2025–2026.
This site tracks what's publicly known about those questions: what the regulations say, what regulators have found, and what's still unresolved.
This site is built on publicly available sources: CFPB reports, FMCSA regulations, court records, and industry trade coverage. See sources throughout.
Repossession forwarders are companies that sit between auto lenders and the field recovery agencies that physically repossess vehicles. A lender sends an assignment to a forwarder; the forwarder routes it to a local recovery agency; the agency performs the repossession; the vehicle goes to auction. The forwarder manages logistics across all of it.
According to CFPB data published in January 2025, forwarding intermediaries now handle approximately 66–69% of U.S. vehicle repossessions, up from 31% in 2018. The growth of the forwarding model is well documented.
What is less documented — and currently a subject of active regulatory and legal discussion — is what legal obligations that model creates for the forwarder, and whether those obligations are currently being met.
Forwarders market themselves as logistics and compliance infrastructure for lenders. Platforms like Primeritus describe themselves as outsourced business partners that manage the repossession process for lenders that lack the in-house capability. Resolvion describes its services as repossession forwarding, skip tracing, and license plate recognition.
Both companies — and others in the space — describe their agent networks as thoroughly vetted, compliance-focused, and technology-enabled. The question of whether that self-description aligns with regulatory requirements is what regulators and analysts are now examining.
In June 2026, CURepossession — the primary trade publication for the repossession industry — published an analysis raising the question of whether repossession forwarding companies are required to register with the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) as brokers of transportation.
The federal broker definition at 49 U.S.C. § 13102(2) covers entities that arrange transportation by motor carrier for compensation without themselves being the carrier. Registration under 49 U.S.C. § 13904 is required, along with a $75,000 surety bond — a requirement that has been in place since MAP-21 raised the threshold in 2012.
"[A] person, other than a motor carrier or an employee or agent of a motor carrier, that as a principal or agent sells, offers for sale, negotiates for, or holds itself out by solicitation, advertisement, or otherwise as one who sells, provides, or arranges for, transportation by motor carrier for compensation."
FMCSA itself states: "Unlawful brokerage activity occurs when an individual arranges transportation services and they are not registered as a broker with FMCSA, as all brokers must be registered and have approved financial security on file."
The open question: Whether repossession forwarding companies fall within this definition has not been formally adjudicated or ruled on by FMCSA. The industry has not registered under it. Whether that constitutes a compliance gap — or whether there are applicable exemptions or defenses — is not settled in publicly available sources. The analysis published in June 2026 argues the definition applies. No public rebuttal from the forwarding industry has been published as of this writing.
The FMCSA's SAFER (Safety and Fitness Electronic Records) system is a public database of registered motor carriers and brokers. An author's review conducted in June 2026 found that the major national forwarding platforms have no records in the SAFER system — neither as brokers nor as motor carriers.
This finding was published as part of the June 2026 analysis in CURepossession. It has not been independently disputed by Primeritus, Resolvion, PAR North America, Big Time Recovery, or American Recovery Service as of this writing.
No FMCSA enforcement action against a repossession forwarder has been identified in public records. Whether FMCSA considers these entities within its jurisdiction — and whether it intends to act — is unknown. No formal guidance on this question appears in the FMCSA public record.
On May 14, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC, No. 24-1238, in a 9-0 opinion written by Justice Barrett. The Court held that the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act (FAAAA) does not preempt state-law negligent-hiring claims when motor carrier safety obligations are at issue.
CURepossession covered the ruling the same day under the headline "Supreme Court Ruling Could Increase Liability Pressure on Repo Forwarders and Transportation Networks." Industry analysts quoted in trade press noted that the ruling removes a preemption argument that had functioned to limit negligent-selection claims against companies in the transportation chain.
Repossession field agencies are motor carriers — a point established by the Supreme Court in Columbus v. Ours Garage & Wrecker Service, Inc., 536 U.S. 424 (2002). If field agencies are motor carriers, and forwarders select which field agency gets each assignment, the Montgomery holding potentially opens the door to negligent-selection claims against forwarders in cases where a field agency caused harm.
What this means in practice — how courts will apply the Montgomery reasoning to the forwarding model specifically — is not yet established. No published case has applied Montgomery to a repossession forwarder as of this writing.
Separately from the motor carrier analysis, UCC Article 9 imposes a non-delegable duty on secured parties not to breach the peace in repossessing collateral. Compliance experts have noted in trade press that this duty cannot be fully transferred to third parties — the lender remains responsible for how the repossession is conducted, regardless of what the contract with the forwarder says.
What this means for the forwarder's own exposure — rather than the lender's — is less clearly established in published sources.
How courts will apply Montgomery to the repossession forwarding context specifically is not established. No verdict or published opinion has addressed the question directly. The theoretical liability framework is being discussed in trade press; its actual litigation trajectory is unknown.
In January 2025, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau published its report Repossession in Auto Finance, which contained the most comprehensive government data on the forwarding model to date.
Key findings relevant to forwarders:
Market penetration: Lenders' use of repossession forwarders grew from 31% of assignments in January 2018 to 66% in December 2022. A separate measure showed forwarder use at 69% among a different data cut.
Consumer cost: Average repossession costs charged to consumers were higher when a forwarder was used in the transaction. The forwarding layer adds cost that can ultimately appear on a consumer's deficiency balance.
UDAAP concern flagged: Industry trade press reported that the CFPB analysis raised questions about whether certain forwarding fee practices could constitute unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices (UDAAP) — though the CFPB report itself was descriptive rather than enforcement-focused.
The CFPB's current posture toward repossession enforcement is uncertain. The Bureau's supervisory priorities have shifted, and the level of active oversight of the repossession forwarding sector as of mid-2026 is not publicly clear.
The following questions are active in public discussion as of June 2026. Status reflects publicly available information only.
| Question | Status | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Do repossession forwarders meet the FMCSA broker definition? | Open / Unadjudicated | CURepossession, June 2026 |
| Are major forwarding platforms registered with FMCSA? | No — per SAFER review | Author's SAFER review, June 2026 |
| Does Montgomery expose forwarders to negligent-selection claims? | Emerging — not litigated yet | Trade press, May 2026 |
| Do forwarding fees constitute UDAAP under CFPB authority? | Open — flagged, not pursued | CFPB Report, Jan. 2025 |
| Are forwarder state licensing requirements being met? | Disputed — active trade debate | CURepossession, industry press |
| Who bears compliance responsibility: lender or forwarder? | Lender — per compliance experts | Collection Compliance Experts, 2024 |
The publicly available picture has significant gaps. Analytical publications covering the FMCSA question in depth, the liability framework post-Montgomery, and the rate schedule architecture are available through industry channels.
Back to the Basics →