C.H. Robinson has confirmed to TWOSU News that it has banned Super Ego and the trucking companies operating within its network, a significant development as the logistics giant fights a newly filed federal civil racketeering lawsuit that repeatedly cites Super Ego and its affiliated carriers.
The company did not disclose when those carrier relationships ended or why they were terminated, making it impossible at this stage to establish whether the decision occurred before or after the federal lawsuit was filed.
“Super Ego carriers are no longer part of our network,” C.H. Robinson said in a statement provided to industry media.
The confirmation carries added significance because C.H. Robinson publicly named Super Ego its 2025 Carrier of the Year in the 1,000-plus-truck category just over a year ago. That award remains documented on C.H. Robinson’s own corporate website.
The development comes as six trucking companies pursue a civil lawsuit against C.H. Robinson and Total Quality Logistics in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The case, Stevens Trucking Co. et al. v. C.H. Robinson Company, Inc. et al., No. 2:26-cv-00869, was filed September 23 and is classified on the federal docket as a Racketeer/Corrupt Organization case.
Matt Hummel actually they aren’t…re branding isn’t shutting down…you can follow the vehicles and the plates by using this app:
https://twosunews.com/fleet-watch/
The plaintiffs are Stevens Trucking Co., Western Flyer Express LLC, D&M Carriers LLC doing business as Freymiller Trucking, IWX Motor Freight LLC, Christenson Transportation Inc. and E.O.S. Inc. They allege that C.H. Robinson and TQL used what the complaint characterizes as illegal or “chameleon” carriers whose operating costs were allegedly suppressed through violations of safety and labor requirements, allowing the brokers to compete for freight at rates that compliant carriers could not match.
Those allegations have not been proven in court. The case is a private civil RICO action, not a criminal indictment, and neither C.H. Robinson nor TQL has been convicted of criminal conduct in connection with the lawsuit.
Super Ego is discussed extensively in the complaint as an alleged example of the type of carrier network at issue, but Super Ego itself is not named as a defendant in the RICO case.
C.H. Robinson has strongly disputed the plaintiffs’ characterization of both its business practices and its relationship with companies connected to Super Ego.
In its response, C.H. Robinson said Super Ego operated as a holding company and that the individual trucking companies under its umbrella that worked with C.H. Robinson maintained their own federal operating authority. The company further asserted that those carriers were in good standing with the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration at the time C.H. Robinson worked with them.
That is C.H. Robinson’s position in response to the lawsuit, rather than a judicial finding concerning the status, ownership structure or regulatory history of every carrier identified by the plaintiffs.
C.H. Robinson also challenged the complaint’s characterization of testimony allegedly given by former carrier-services executive Bruce Johnson. The company said the complaint’s description of that testimony was false and that Johnson “said nothing of the sort in his deposition.”
The plaintiffs, meanwhile, contend that their case goes beyond ordinary disagreements over freight rates.
Their complaint alleges a broader arrangement in which brokers knowingly benefited from carriers that supposedly avoided expenses associated with safety compliance, labor laws and other regulatory obligations. The plaintiffs further allege that those savings allowed freight to move at prices legitimate trucking companies could not profitably accept. Those remain allegations that C.H. Robinson has expressly rejected.
C.H. Robinson has separately disputed the idea that brokers simply dictate freight rates or automatically award loads to the cheapest carrier.
Chief Legal Officer Dorothy Capers said in a company response reported after the lawsuit was filed that freight pricing is driven by market supply and demand and that carrier selection involves factors including equipment, proximity, certifications, fleet size and customer requirements. The company has said it intends to defend itself aggressively and pursue counterclaims.
But the new confirmation concerning Super Ego introduces a factual development that did not exist in the initial complaint coverage.
C.H. Robinson once publicly honored Super Ego as one of its top carriers. It now confirms that Super Ego-affiliated carriers are no longer part of its network, while declining to say when or why that relationship ended.
That unanswered timeline could become important as the litigation moves forward.
If the case survives preliminary motions and reaches discovery, the parties could potentially seek internal communications, carrier-vetting records, contracts, rate information and documents concerning when particular carrier relationships began or ended. Whether any such evidence will actually be produced, and what it might show, remains unknown because the litigation is still in its early stages.
The plaintiffs also face the burden of proving the elements of their civil RICO claims and establishing that the alleged conduct caused the economic injuries they claim. C.H. Robinson will have opportunities to seek dismissal, challenge the plaintiffs’ evidence and present its own account of the carrier relationships and freight-market practices at issue.
For now, one point is no longer disputed:
C.H. Robinson has publicly confirmed that Super Ego carriers are no longer in its network. What remains unanswered is exactly when the relationship ended, why it ended and whether those facts will ultimately matter to the federal lawsuit.
