Southway Carriers, a trucking company, agreed to a $7.5 million class action settlement tied to its lease and lease‑to‑purchase driver agreements—contracts often marketed as a pathway for drivers to become “owner‑operators.” In this model, drivers typically lease a truck (and sometimes related equipment or services) through the carrier or an affiliated program, then get paid by the mile or by the load while also covering recurring deductions such as lease payments, insurance, maintenance, fuel, and administrative fees. These arrangements can be attractive because they promise independence, but they can also be financially precarious if the deductions, load availability, or contract terms leave drivers earning far less than expected or owing money despite working full time. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of drivers who entered Southway lease or lease‑to‑purchase agreements between February 6, 2013 and the present, alleging the program’s structure and terms harmed drivers in ways that merited classwide relief. Its significance is twofold: it provides compensation through a common fund rather than forcing individual drivers—who may have limited records or resources—to litigate separately, and it puts a spotlight on a long‑running controversy in trucking over whether some “ownership” programs effectively shift business risk and operating costs onto drivers while the carrier retains substantial control. More broadly, this case fits a pattern of litigation challenging lease‑purchase and independent‑contractor models in trucking, with disputes frequently centering on pay transparency, the fairness of deductions, and whether drivers are truly independent or function like employees without employee protections. The regulatory backdrop includes federal leasing rules administered by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (often called the “truth‑in‑leasing” regulations, 49 C.F.R. Part 376), which are designed to require clear disclosures and prevent abusive lease terms, alongside state wage, deduction, and misclassification laws that can trigger liability when contracts conflict with how work is actually performed. Settlements like this can influence how carriers draft future agreements, disclose costs, and structure deductions, while also encouraging drivers to scrutinize whether the promised path to ownership matches the economic reality of the deal.