What a court already found about Highway.

The case, in plain terms.

A motor carrier named KenDann Transport sued Highway. Highway asked the court to throw the lawsuit out early under the Texas anti-SLAPP statute (the TCPA), arguing that what it published about the carrier was a "matter of public concern." The trial court refused. Highway appealed. On March 23, 2026 the Court of Appeals affirmed, meaning Highway lost, and the carrier's case continues.

What Highway is, in the court's words.

This is how the court described Highway, not how we describe it:

The court also noted that Highway maintains a profile page for each carrier registered with the U.S. Department of Transportation, pulls government data from FMCSA and the federal safety records system, and makes that data visible inside its app.

What happened.

According to the opinion, a freight broker sent Highway a news article about a Wyoming street address, 30 N. Gould Street in Sheridan, that had been tied to scams. Highway then ran a system-wide search of its own database.

Six out of 674. The carrier that sued, KenDann, was not one of the six. It simply shared the same street address, a registered-agent address used by hundreds of legitimate companies.

Highway's own Chief Risk Officer, on the record.

This is the part every carrier and broker should read. Highway's Chief Risk Officer described, under oath, the decision Highway made:

"At least one freight broker wanted to exclude all carriers with this street address." That is broker-driven exclusion, described by Highway itself, in a sworn statement, on a public court record.

The alert Highway published.

The court reproduced the alert Highway attached to affected carriers:

The mistake the court pointed out.

The alert named "Suite R." The carrier that was flagged had a different suite entirely.

In other words, a legitimate carrier was swept into an alert built around a suite number that was not even its own, "regardless of suite number," in Highway's own words.

What the court held.

Highway argued its statements were protected because they touched a "matter of public concern." The court disagreed:

The court treated this not as some public-interest watchdog notice, but as a private business dispute between a carrier and the company that flagged it. Highway's attempt to end the case early failed, and the carrier's claims move forward. Nothing here is a final finding of liability; it is the court refusing to let Highway walk away early, and it is Highway's own sworn description of how its exclusion decisions get made.

Read it yourself.

Sources

Court of Appeals, Fifth District of Texas at Dallas, opinion in Highway App, Inc. v. KenDann Transport, No. 05-25-00789-CV, March 23, 2026 (Justia). All quotations are from the public opinion.