project44 smacks MyCarrier, arbitration likely next step

MyCarrier began a fight with project44 that they could never win. As I had a lot of questions about it, I decided to post about it here. I suspect tens of you will find it interesting.

In a closely watched dispute over API services in the logistics industry, the Delaware Court of Chancery has found that MyCarrier likely did breach its contract with project44 both by "building behind" project44 as well as transitioning to an alternative provider, SMC3.

Despite the likely breach, the Court determined that project44 failed to show irreparable harm, a key requirement for injunctive relief & denied project44’s motion for a preliminary injunction against MyCarrier.

The Issue: MyCarrier, which licensed project44’s API services, was accused of breaching its agreement by developing its own competing eBOL functionality and, once discovered, switching to an alternative provider, SMC3. project44 sought to block this move, citing non-compete & anti-“build behind” provisions in their contract.

The Ruling: While the court found that MyCarrier likely did breach the contract, it ruled that project44 failed to show irreparable harm. The attached images come directly from the Opinion, & I have underlined where applicable regarding the anti "build behind" as well as the alternative provider language. On irreparable harm, the Court noted project44's revenue in relation to the MyCarrier business and found it negligible.

Why It Matters: This ruling highlights the complexities of API agreements, competition clauses, and “disintermediation” risks in SaaS-based supply chain solutions. The case now moves forward, likely to arbitration, with potential long-term implications for tech-driven logistics partnerships.