“I was promised ownership.”That line shows up in too many stories from truckers stuck in “lease‑to‑own” schemes and U.S. Rep. Julia Brownley (D‑CA) is saying enough is enough.
On September 23, 2025, reported that Brownley introduced the Predatory Truck Leasing Prevention Act (H.R. 5423), a deceptively short 3‑page bill aimed squarely at what she calls exploitative lease‑purchase contracts that prey on owner‑operator drivers.
What’s wrong with these “lease‑purchase” deals?
A quick breakdown:
The motor carrier (or an affiliate) owns the truck and leases it to a driver who must operate exclusively for that carrier.
The driver is told: make the payments, run your routes, and eventually you’ll “own” the truck.
But in practice, many drivers never reach ownership. They end up in crippling debt, with low pay, and no real equity.
The schemes often deny drivers freedom to shop around, negotiate better deals, or walk away the carrier maintains control.
Because of how contracts are structured, these arrangements may be a form of disguising what is really an employment relationship without benefits i.e. “employee misclassification.”
In the report by the Truck Leasing Task Force (created under the FMCSA during the Biden administration), these lease schemes were called “irredeemable tools of fraud and driver oppression.” Their investigation urged Congress to ban such programs outright, or at least regulate them tightly.
What does Brownley’s bill do and not?
Here’s the meat:
It mandates that the U.S. Department of Transportation create regulations within one year of the law’s passage to prohibit predatory lease‑purchase programs.
It defines “predatory commercial motor vehicle lease‑purchase agreement program” in specific terms: these are arrangements where the carrier controls the driver’s work, compensation, debt, and the driver gains little to no equity over time.
It ties the “predatory” status not just to the written contract but to how the carrier practices recruitment, operations, tax, and financial structures.
But it does not (at least in its current form):
Prescribe precise penalties or enforcement mechanisms beyond directing DOT to regulate.
Guarantee full federal oversight of every lease i.e., if Congress doesn’t ban these schemes outright, the alternative is regulation and oversight (which is always weaker than an outright ban).
Who’s backing it and who’s pushing back?
Supporters:
OOIDA (Owner‑Operator Independent Drivers Association) Their president, Todd Spencer, called these programs “scams that dangle the promise of ownership but leave drivers broke, trapped in debt, and kicked to the curb with nothing to show for it.”
Teamsters Union Their General President Sean M. O’Brien stated: “Predatory truck leasing arrangements target decent hardworking people looking for careers … only to lead them to financial ruin.”
The Task Force report itself, backed by the FMCSA and DOT oversight, recommends such reforms.
Potential obstacles:
In a “deregulatory climate,” some in Congress may balk at giving DOT more regulatory power.
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), which might be a natural partner for oversight, has been weakened under past and current administrations.
Some carriers will fight their business models rely on squeezing profit from drivers who can’t fight back.
Bottom line this is fight time for drivers
Brownley’s bill isn’t a silver bullet it leaves much to interpretation and enforcement. But it is the first real congressional salvo to outlaw these schemes that have hoodwinked drivers for decades.
If you drive under a lease‑purchase deal, or have for years, this is your moment:
Contact your Congressman / Congresswoman and ask them to support H.R. 5423.
Share your story show how these deals destroyed your finances and dreams.
Push for stricter language ask that any final law demand strong enforcement, auditing, stiff penalties, and driver recourse, not just vague guidelines.
You can’t beat a system unless you shine a light on it. If Congress won’t act, carriers will keep playing the bait‑and‑switch.
