Of 13,085 EPA Pesticide Cases, 39 Hit Pest Control Firms
Key result: EPA recorded 13,085 enforcement cases under the federal pesticide law, FIFRA, from fiscal 2010 to 2026. We identified 39 against pest control service businesses, about two a year, with $806,935 in federal penalties. Most federal pesticide enforcement now targets imports: 3,036 cases, including 1,786 referring to COVID-19.
Who polices pest control
The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act governs how pesticides are registered, sold and used. Under section 26 of the act, a state has primary enforcement responsibility for pesticide use violations once EPA determines it has adequate use laws, enforcement procedures and record-keeping, so day-to-day enforcement of how pest control businesses apply pesticides is largely carried out by states. What has not been measured is what the federal agency itself does.
EPA publishes its enforcement case records through its ECHO system. We downloaded every case citing FIFRA, 19,101 since the 1970s, and analysed the 13,085 from fiscal 2010 to fiscal 2026.
Federal pesticide enforcement turned toward the border
What it means. Federal FIFRA cases roughly quadrupled, from 309 in fiscal 2010 to 1,345 in fiscal 2026. The growth came from imports. Cases involving imported pesticides, typically refusals of entry for unregistered products, rose from 6 in 2010 to 688 in 2021. In 2020 to 2023, during and after the pandemic, 1,577 cases referred to COVID-19, most of them unregistered disinfectants and devices stopped at the border.
What limits it. We identified import-related and COVID-19 cases from violation types and the case text; some cases may be missed by that method. Case counts include notices and refusals as well as penalty orders.
Cases against pest control businesses
| Issue | Cases | Federal penalties |
|---|---|---|
| Use inconsistent with the label | 13 | $234,263 |
| Producing-establishment reporting | 12 | $28,186 |
| Selling, importing or relabelling products | 7 | $6,500 |
| Methyl bromide misuse or sale | 7 | $537,987 |
| Total | 39 | $806,935 |
Source: US EPA, ECHO enforcement case data (ICIS-FE&C), cases citing FIFRA, fiscal years 2010 to 2026, downloaded 5 October 2026. Pest control service businesses identified by name; product sellers, a county weed district and a garden centre excluded. Categories assigned by the author from EPA’s case summaries. Every case and summary is in the CSV.
What it means. Federal action against pest control businesses is rare: 39 cases in 17 years. Two thirds of the penalty money came from seven methyl bromide cases, six of them involving businesses in Puerto Rico and all handled by EPA Region 2, for applying the fumigant in ways inconsistent with its approved uses or for improper sale. The largest single penalty against a named national company was $168,535, paid by The Terminix International Company in fiscal 2018 for record-keeping failures and use “in manners inconsistent with their labeling”, in EPA’s summary. Twelve cases were paperwork: businesses that also produce or repackage pesticides failing to file annual production reports.
What limits it. Identifying businesses by name misses any whose name does not mention pest control, termites or extermination. This is federal enforcement only; state cases, which are far more numerous, are not in these records.
Examples from EPA’s summaries
- Fumigation precautions. In fiscal 2011 EPA proposed a $20,100 penalty against a Hawaii company after structures were not placarded, gas pilot lights were not extinguished and food was not removed, all label requirements for a fumigation; the settled penalty was $17,000.
- Fumigant warning agents. A fiscal 2012 Puerto Rico case concerned a Vikane fumigation applied together with chloropicrin, the warning agent.
- Restricted use. A fiscal 2016 case cited use of a restricted-use pesticide for purposes other than those allowed, with a $14,000 penalty.
Checks
1. Statute filter
Method. Cases selected where any law section cites FIFRA.
2. Business identification
Method. Case names containing pest control, exterminating, termite, pest management or service terms, or two national brands; manually reviewed and false matches excluded.
Download the data
The tables in this report are published as CSV files under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence. You may republish, remix and build on them, including commercially, with attribution to The Pest Control Brief and a link to this page.
- FIFRA enforcement cases by fiscal year, with import-related, COVID-19 and pest control business counts and penalties (CSV, 17 rows)
- All 39 FIFRA cases against pest control service businesses, with categories and EPA summaries (CSV, 39 rows)
How to cite this report
The Pest Control Brief, “EPA Brought 13,085 Pesticide Enforcement Cases in 17 Years. 39 Were Against Pest Control Businesses”, 2 October 2026. https://thepestcontrolbrief.com/epa-pesticide-enforcement-data/
References
- US Environmental Protection Agency. ECHO Data Downloads: ICIS-FE&C enforcement case files. echo.epa.gov/tools/data-downloads. Downloaded 5 October 2026.
- US Environmental Protection Agency. Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act State Primacy. epa.gov FIFRA state primacy. Accessed 5 October 2026.
How the cases were analysed
Data. EPA’s federal enforcement and compliance case files: enforcement actions, law sections, violations, penalties and facilities.
Scope. Cases citing FIFRA with fiscal years 2010 to 2026.
Limitations. Federal cases only. Business identification by name. Penalty amounts are federal penalties as recorded.
Last reviewed: 5 October 2026.
For trade and regulatory reporters
Most quotable statistics
- EPA recorded 13,085 FIFRA enforcement cases from fiscal 2010 to 2026.
- 39 were against pest control service businesses, with $806,935 in federal penalties.
- Seven methyl bromide cases, mostly in Puerto Rico, accounted for $537,987 of those penalties.
- 3,036 cases involved imports, and 1,786 referred to COVID-19.
Press summary
Federal enforcement of the pesticide law rarely reaches pest control companies, according to an analysis of EPA enforcement records by The Pest Control Brief. Of 13,085 FIFRA cases from fiscal 2010 to 2026, 39 were against pest control service businesses, with $806,935 in penalties, two thirds of it from methyl bromide cases in Puerto Rico. The agency’s caseload quadrupled over the period, driven by refusals of unregistered imported products, including 1,786 cases connected to COVID-19.
Headlines editors could use
- EPA’s pesticide police mostly patrol the border
- 39 federal cases against pest control companies in 17 years
- Methyl bromide drove most federal penalties on exterminators
Questions
How often does EPA penalise pest control companies?
Rarely. We found 39 FIFRA cases against pest control service businesses from fiscal 2010 to 2026, about two a year.
Who enforces pesticide rules for exterminators?
Mostly states. EPA’s federal cases are a small share of pesticide enforcement against applicators.
What do most EPA pesticide cases involve?
Increasingly, imports: 3,036 of 13,085 cases since fiscal 2010, including 1,786 referring to COVID-19.
What was the largest penalty against a pest control company?
$238,622, in a fiscal 2016 methyl bromide default order against a Puerto Rico exterminating company and others. The largest against a national brand was $168,535, paid by The Terminix International Company in fiscal 2018.
Where can I see the cases?
All 39, with EPA’s summaries, are in the CSV above.
