ELD Fraud Exposed: Drivers Reveal 22-Hour Hauls

ELD fraud allegations put drivers at the center of a widening trucking enforcement problem

Electronic logging devices were intended to make hours-of-service enforcement more accurate and improve highway safety. But drivers interviewed in recent trucking industry reporting say some carriers have used remote access, altered log records and pressure from dispatchers to keep trucks moving well beyond legal limits.

Several drivers described hauling loads for 16, 18 or even 22 hours in a single day after their electronic logs were changed to make it appear they still had available driving time. The accounts point to a system in which drivers, rather than the companies directing the operation, often bear the greatest personal risk.

Federal hours-of-service rules generally limit property-carrying drivers to 11 hours of driving within a 14-hour work period, followed by required off-duty time. Drivers also must take a 30-minute break after eight cumulative hours of driving. ELDs were adopted to make those limits more difficult to evade by automatically recording a truck’s movement.

According to drivers interviewed by Overdrive, however, some fleets found ways to manipulate the records from the back end. One driver said that after completing 11 hours of driving, dispatchers would “back” the log so the driver appeared to have another five or six hours available. Others said dispatchers could reset or alter the clock remotely when a delivery was still several hours away.

Jeff Pabst, whose comments were included in the reporting, said he began testing E-log systems before the mandate took effect. He said his first concern was how easily hours could be reset and claimed that anyone with administrator-level access could make changes. His account reflects a broader concern among drivers and safety advocates: An ELD can record data accurately while still being vulnerable to manipulation by people with access to the underlying system.

Drivers described a range of alleged practices, including log edits made outside the United States, instructions to continue driving after the clock expired, and communications through encrypted messaging services. Some also described roadside “spotters” who monitored police activity and warned drivers about enforcement ahead.

Those accounts include serious allegations of cargo theft, fraudulent loads, altered Department of Transportation identification numbers and other criminal activity. Such claims are attributed to individual drivers and have not been independently verified in every case. The common thread in their descriptions is that refusing an assignment or stopping for required rest could lead to lost pay, retaliation, or the loss of the truck and job.

Drivers said some carriers initially presented the arrangements as an opportunity to earn more money. After several weeks, they were allegedly expected to accept increasingly aggressive schedules. One driver described the early period as a “honeymoon,” during which the company promised that everything was acceptable before pushing the driver to run beyond the legal limits.

The financial consequences could also fall heavily on drivers. Some reported loads that paid far less than promised, fuel surcharges that never reached the driver, lease agreements that changed after signing, and repair shops that refused to work on equipment operated by carriers with a history of unpaid bills. One driver said the company owed $22,000 and later blocked and towed the truck after the driver challenged the arrangement.

The alleged fraud also creates a competitive problem for carriers that follow the rules. Zach Meiborg, a fleet owner who has discussed the issue with investigators, described a “two-platform trucking market.” In his comparison, compliant fleets may run roughly 2,000 to 2,500 miles per week, while fleets using manipulated logs may run 4,000 to 5,000 miles.

Running additional miles spreads fixed costs over more freight and can allow a noncompliant carrier to offer lower rates. Meiborg estimated that illegal operators could run at about $1.80 per mile, compared with approximately $2.30 per mile for compliant fleets. He said the difference can leave legitimate carriers losing money while companies that violate the rules expand.

Dave Moss, a longtime trucking safety professional, said he resigned from a company after discovering that logs were being edited overseas. He told FreightWaves that management defended the practice as necessary to remain profitable. The allegations illustrate how drivers can be caught between company pressure, customer delivery demands and rules that place responsibility for the truck’s operation on the person behind the wheel.

Federal regulators have increased enforcement against suspected ELD manipulation. Since January 2025, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration has revoked more than 95 ELDs from its approved registry for failing to meet minimum standards and blocked 552 additional vendor applications through enhanced review.

Inspection data available through mid-October showed more than 5,000 DOT numbers associated with at least one violation involving remote ELD manipulation. Inspectors recorded more than 16,000 such violations using the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance’s violation code for electronic-record tampering.

FMCSA has also issued guidance addressing the coercion of drivers into violating safety regulations. Enforcement officials, Illinois police and industry representatives met Oct. 28 to examine an ELD that investigators said had been manipulated remotely. The meeting underscored the difficulty of detecting changes that may leave little visible evidence in the truck’s device.

For drivers, the issue extends beyond compliance statistics. Long periods without adequate sleep, pressure to keep moving and uncertainty over pay or equipment can affect safety, health and a driver’s ability to find work after leaving a carrier. Some drivers interviewed said they had reported suspected fraud to regulators and law enforcement but eventually stopped expecting a meaningful response.

The ELD mandate was designed to make illegal driving easier to identify. The experiences described by these drivers show that enforcement must also address the people and systems with access to the records. When a carrier can use technology to make excessive driving appear legal, the driver remains exposed to the roadside consequences, the safety risks and the financial fallout.