The trucking industry is saturated with noise. Brokers, insurance providers, and technology vendors all produce content designed to sell products. Ecademy Press operates differently. Our Editorial Code is the contract we sign with our readers to ensure trust, neutrality, and utility.

1. The Wall Between News and Commerce

Ecademy Press maintains a strict separation between our editorial content and any potential commercial partnerships. We do not accept payment for favorable coverage. If a Briefing mentions a specific technology (e.g., a specific ELD provider or dashcam system), it is because that technology is relevant to the regulatory news story, not because of a sponsorship agreement.

If we ever publish “Sponsored Content,” it will be clearly labeled as such, using a distinct visual design that cannot be confused with our standard Compliance Briefings.

2. The “No Legal Advice” Canon

We are compliance analysts, journalists, and operational experts. We are not attorneys. The distinction is critical:

• Information is telling you what the text of the law says.
• Advice is telling you how to apply that law to a specific legal defense strategy.

We provide the former; we never provide the latter. Our goal is to equip you with the knowledge to have a more productive conversation with your own legal counsel, not to replace them.

3. Verification and Attribution

We do not publish rumors. In the high-stakes world of DOT audits and nuclear verdicts, “hearing something on the radio” is not a compliance strategy. Every claim made in our briefings must be traceable to a documentable source. If a regulation is “pending” or “proposed,” we will explicitly state that it is not yet law. We vigorously fact-check dates, fine amounts, and implementation timelines.

4. Accessibility of Language

We believe that regulatory language is often exclusionary. It is written by lawyers, for lawyers. Our ethical obligation is to translate this language into “Dispatcher English.” However, in doing so, we pledge not to oversimplify to the point of inaccuracy. When a complex nuance exists, we will explain the nuance rather than ignoring it for the sake of brevity.