indicators (KPIs). As I’ve stated many times in my expert reports and testimonies, SLAs govern 3PL performance. (You can’t manage what you don’t measure, right?) If a 3PL doesn’t meet its KPIs — or worse, if KPIs are not clearly stated in their SLAs — then their customer’s service levels are likely to suffer. Tightly written, well-defined SLAs create accountability, while vague, ambiguous, or nonexistent SLAs open the door for argument.
LITIGATION LESSONS: WHAT GOES WRONG BETWEEN 3PLS AND THEIR CUSTOMERS
I
By Stephen T. Hopper
magine this scenario: A manufacturer of health and beauty products partners with a third-party logistics provider (3PL) to handle their fulfillment operations. During their startup phase, the 3PL misses agreed-upon performance requirements defined in the customer’s service-level agreement (SLA). The customer initially waives the penalties and agrees to amended terms, but later they accuse the 3PL of breaching those same metrics. Meanwhile, the customer secretly establishes a new relationship with different 3PL, demands millions of dollars in concessions from their original 3PL, and then walks away, resulting in a legal battle over tens of millions more in damages. Scenarios like this aren’t rare. I know, because I’ve served as an expert witness on more than 50 cases related to warehousing, fulfillment, distribution, and logistics. I’ve been retained by 3PLs and by businesses who hired them, and I’ve seen how trust can evaporate, turning 3PL relationships from symbiotic to adverse, potentially deteriorating into costly and time-consuming litigation. In my experience, even the most promising 3PL partnerships can derail. But it doesn’t have to be like this. Logistics professionals on both sides of the relationship — 3PLs and their customers — can avoid certain costly mistakes that can turn their once healthy partnership into courtroom drama. Here are six of the most common and costly causes of 3PL disputes: 1. Service-Level Failures At the heart of most 3PL disputes is performance: On-time shipment rate, order accuracy, inventory accuracy, and other industry-standard performance metrics and key performance
20 PARCELindustry.com MAY-JUNE 2025
2. Contract Ambiguity Many 3PL disputes stem from the contract itself. Although 3PLs generally prefer to use their own standard logistics service agreements (LSAs), these can be poorly written. They can contain vague statements of work (SOWs), nebulous service descriptions, or unclear penalty and termination clauses that can create confusion about operational responsibilities and expectations. Weak or ambiguous contract terms complicate efforts to determine accountability when something goes wrong. Plus, contract terms that strongly favor 3PLs are sometimes overlooked by customers unfamiliar with 3PL contracting nuances. As a result, 3PL disputes often hinge on language that seemed harmless during contract negotiation but proved costly when the operations came under stress. 3. Capacity Limitations at Times of Peak Demand As my dad often said, “When your head’s in the freezer, and your feet are in the fire, on average you’re doing pretty well.” Customer demand is often unpredictable, and factors such as seasonality, economic cycles, product launches and promotions, weather events, regulatory changes, material shortages, and major disruptors like COVID or trade tariffs can produce wild swings in demand. If the 3PL can’t scale up its capacity — labor, dock space, processing capacity, etc. — the customer relationship is often strained by missed orders and backlogs. Too often, a dispute develops when potential demand swings and related volume commitments aren’t considered or discussed when a business hires a 3PL. 4. Inventory Losses or Damage Another common trigger of 3PL disputes is inventory accountability during handling and storage. These disputes often involve claims of lost, stolen, or damaged inventory, and they can be severe — sometimes giving rise to multi-million-dollar lawsuits. For example, I’ve seen cases where poor tracking of expiration dates led to millions of dollars in inventory losses. I’ve also seen a case involving a customer who had mislabeled their cases with incorrect item quantities and later blamed the 3PL for stealing their inventory. Typical LSAs preferred by 3PLs limit the 3PL’s liability, but not the customer’s losses. When the parties disagree on the value of the lost or damaged inventory, the party who is responsible for the losses, or the root causes of the losses, tensions escalate. 5. Unexpected Billing and Accessorial Charges Activity-based costing and billing, commonly called “accessorial” charges, are fundamental elements of most 3PL agreements. These charges are typically volume-based fees for