How many complaints and lawsuits involving Terminix have been filed in Massachusetts?  How does the State of Massachusetts rate as a public agency in providing information to the public and/or in their own knowledge to license and regulate the pest control companies that spray toxic chemicals in homes, businesses, and schools?

On December 12, 1998, I sent an e-mail letter to the State of Massachusetts’ Attorney General’s Office requesting the following information:

• What is the name and address of Massachusetts’ pest inspection/pest control licensing and regulating agency?
• How many years does Massachusetts’ licensing and regulating agency maintain records of complaints against pest control/pest inspection companies?
• How many Terminix branches are currently operating in Massachusetts? (My records, taken from the Yellow Pages on the Internet, indicate there are 20 Terminix, aka Terminix International, aka Terminix Termite and Pest Control branches operating in Massachusetts.)
• How many complaints, if any, have been filed in Massachusetts against Terminix International (and its aka’s); including the nature of the complaints, name and location of Terminix branch involved; and disposition of complaints (dismissed, settled, fine, suspended or revoked license, probation, etc.)?

An e-mail letter December 15, 1998, from the Massachusetts’ Attorney General’s Office states:

In the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, exterminators and those who use pesticides are licensed by the Pesticide Board of the Department of Food and Agriculture, located at 100 Cambridge Street, 21st Fl., Boston, MA 02202, and their telephone number is (617) 727-3020.

The only information the Attorney General’s Office can provide you is the number of consumer complaints on file against Terminix from 1995 to present. The following information does not represent an opinion by the Attorney General that a business violated the law, nor is it an endorsement or a criticism. To date, there are presently 34 consumer complaints on file concerning Terminix.

Under the investigatory exemption to the Public Records Law, we cannot provide you information concerning the disposition of the complaint or the name of the complaining consumer.  However, pursuant to the Public Records note, the complaining consumer’s identifying information will be redacted, and there is a $10.00 per hour research fee and a $.20 per page photocopying fee.  If you would like to receive copies of the complaints, please respond by e-mail, and we will provide you an estimate of the cost of complying with your request.

For additional information, I sent a letter on February 22, 1999, to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Office of the Attorney General, Consumer Protection Board, and a letter on February 24, 1999, to the Massachusetts Department of Food and Agriculture, Pesticide Board asking the same questions. The answers, shown below, were provided March 3 by Chi Chi Wu, Assistant Attorney General, Consumer Protection and Antitrust Division of the Office of the Attorney General and March 9 by John Kenney, Chief Inspector, Department of Food and Agriculture, Executive Office of Environmental Affairs:

1. What is the name and address of Massachusetts pest inspection/pest control licensing and regulating agency?

The name and address of our state’s pest inspection/pest control licensing and regulatory agency:

Pesticide Bureau
Department of Food and Agriculture
Executive Office of Environmental Affairs
100 Cambridge Street
Boston, MA 02202

2. How many years does Massachusetts licensing and regulating agency maintain records of complaints against pest control/pest inspection companies?

Records go back to approximately 1979/1980.

3. How many Terminix branches are currently operating in Massachusetts  (My records, taken from the Yellow Pages on the Internet, indicate there are currently 20 Terminix, aka Terminix International, aka Terminix Termite and Pest Control branches operating in Massachusetts.)

13.

4. How many complaints, if any, have been filed in Massachusetts against Terminix International (and its aka’s); including the nature of the complaints, name and location of Terminix branch involved; and disposition of complaints (dismissed, settled, fine, suspended or revoked license, probation, etc.)?

While records were provided dating back to 1981, only those complaints going back five years are provided here. Combined with the 34 complaints reported by the Attorney General’s Office, it appears there are 43 complaints on file in Massachusetts:

1992 -- State of Massachusetts vs. Terminix.  Reported in the December 22, 1992 issue of The Patriot Ledger, “State files lawsuit against exterminator”:

State officials filed suit yesterday against the Memphis-based Terminix International Co. for violating the state’s pesticide control law. The company allegedly violated the law more than 2,000 times between January and September of 1991 by hiring unlicensed and uncertified workers to apply pesticides, Attorney General Scott Harshbarger said.

The suit, filed yesterday in Suffolk Superior Court, charges that the company violated an administrative order by failing to keep accurate and complete records, Harshbarger said.  But company officials say their workers were properly trained and they blame the state for what they say is an unusually lengthy and complicated licensing procedure. The company could face fines of $10,000 dollars for each violation of the pesticide law, and up to $25,000 for each violation of the administrative order.  The Massachusetts Pesticide Control Act is designed to prevent harm to humans, wildlife and the environment, Harshbarger said.

Massachusetts Attorney General vs. Terminix:

The Office of the Massachusetts Attorney General
NEWS RELEASE
DECEMBER 30, 2002

Terminix Agrees to Pay $100,000, Change Practices in State Under
Settlement Reached by AG Reilly

BOSTON -- The pest-control company Terminix must pay $100,000 and change its business practices to settle allegations that it charged consumers for unnecessary services, AG Tom Reilly announced today.

The settlement, filed today in Suffolk Superior Court, stems from an investigation of Terminix conducted by AG Reilly's Consumer Protection and Antitrust Division along with the Pesticide Bureau, a division of the state Department of Food and Agriculture. The investigation, which began in 2000 and reviewed the company's business practices from 1998 to 2001, found evidence that Terminix workers were spraying home exteriors during winter and encouraging cconsumers to purchase monthly service contracts or carpenter ant extermination, despite the fact that these insects are largely dormant in cold weather.

"This settlement helps to protect consumers and the environment, as well as ensure that pesticides are only sprayed under appropriate conditions," AG Reilly said. "While consumers should be able to rely on a company providing pest control services, it always make sense to ask questions and get answers before signing a contract of any kind."

Under the terms of a settlement, Terminix will pay $70,000 to the Local Consumer Aid Fund and $30,000 to cover the costs of the state investigation. In addition, the company has agreed to stop applying pesticides outdoors for carpenter ants during the winter months and thoroughly explain to consumers that year-round pesticide control for carpenter ants may not be necessary.

Today's settlement applies to the five Terminix offices located across Massachusetts.  Hundreds of consumers were affected by the business practices of Terminix, according to the investigation and complaints filed with the state pesticide bureau.

Assistant Attorney General David Monahan of the Consumer Protection and Antitrust Division handled the case for the Attorney General's Office, with assistance from Assistant Attorney General Andrew Goldberg of AG Reilly's Environmental Protection Division, and Regulatory Services Director Brad Mitchell of the Pesticide Bureau, Massachusetts Department of Food and Agriculture.