Clark Pest Control Review

How the adjustments work

How we review companies Handshake Score v1.5.0 (rules v1.0.7, confidence v1.2.1)

“In score” marks the profiles counted in the customer-satisfaction factor.

In reviewers’ words

Quoted verbatim, up to 300 characters, as recorded by our researchers with the reviewer’s first name and last initial at most. Low and high ratings are shown alternately.

Profile scope: California and Nevada (home region): HQ file for Clark Pest Control, Inc. (Lodi, California), which covers the headquarters and its corporate-owned locations; branch addresses listed under it are in California and Reno/Sparks, Nevada BBB of Northeast California HQ file (opened 8/7/2000), A+, accredited since 7/10/2001. 34 complaints are published over 4 pages (statuses: 19 Answered, 15 Resolved, none Unanswered); 2 of the 36 are not published. The BBB search (Lodi, California; 3 pages) lists 36 results, most of them addresses on this same HQ file (Lodi, Stockton, Rancho Cordova, Sacramento, Modesto, Sonora, Auburn, Yuba City, Chico, Merced, Salinas, Belmont, Reno and Sparks). There is no pattern-of-complaints alert; the profile carries a Government Action notice for the 2025 DA judgment.

Scored: Complaint record, Sales and contract fairness (−1, −2, −2)

Complaint themes

• Door-to-door sales: price, term or cancellation terms said to differ from the signed agreement, with early-cancellation fees of $199-$600 charged on cancellation and usually waived after the BBB complaint
• Billing errors and accounts sent to collections after cancellation
• Annual price increases
• Service quality and incomplete treatments

BBB profiles

• Main profile · A+View

• Branch profile · accredited · 36 complaints in 3 yearsView

• Branch profile · accredited · 36 complaints in 3 yearsView

• Branch profile · accredited · 36 complaints in 3 yearsView

• Branch profile · accredited · 36 complaints in 3 yearsView

• Branch profile · accredited · 36 complaints in 3 yearsView

• Branch profile · not accredited · 3 complaints in 3 yearsView

  Complaint figure matches the Atlanta HQ file’s total (same A grade, “3 complaint: s filed against business”, 0 in 12 months); the link itself was confirmed on the San Jose, San Mateo, Sparks and two Fresno files (1126-1000184443, 1126-89084950); this file’s page returned 403 or a network error on re-check.

• Branch profile · not accredited · 3 complaints in 3 yearsView

  Complaint figure is the Atlanta HQ file’s total: the page data link this file’s complaints tab to that file (saved HTML, October 28, 2026).

• Branch profile · accredited · 3 complaints in 3 yearsView

  Complaint figure is the Atlanta HQ file’s total: the page data link this file’s complaints tab to that file (saved HTML, October 28, 2026). This URL resolves to the San Jose file (2030 Fortune Dr #100, San Jose, California 95131).

• Branch profile · accredited · 3 complaints in 3 yearsView

  Complaint figure matches the Atlanta HQ file’s total (same A grade, “3 complaint: s filed against business”, 0 in 12 months); the link itself was confirmed on the San Jose, San Mateo, Sparks and two Fresno files (1126-1000184443, 1126-89084950); this file’s page returned 403 or a network error on re-check.

• Branch profile · accredited · 3 complaints in 3 yearsView

  Complaint figure is the Atlanta HQ file’s total: the page data link this file’s complaints tab to that file (saved HTML, October 28, 2026).

• Branch profile · accredited · 3 complaints in 3 yearsView

  Complaint figure matches the Atlanta HQ file’s total (same A grade, “3 complaint: s filed against business”, 0 in 12 months); the link itself was confirmed on the San Jose, San Mateo, Sparks and two Fresno files (1126-1000184443, 1126-89084950); this file’s page returned 403 or a network error on re-check.

• Branch profile · accredited · 3 complaints in 3 yearsView

  Complaint figure is the Atlanta HQ file’s total: the page data link this file’s complaints tab to that file (saved HTML, October 28, 2026).

• Branch profile · accredited · 3 complaints in 3 yearsView

  Complaint figure matches the Atlanta HQ file’s total (same A grade, “3 complaint: s filed against business”, 0 in 12 months); the link itself was confirmed on the San Jose, San Mateo, Sparks and two Fresno files (1126-1000184443, 1126-89084950); this file’s page returned 403 or a network error on re-check.

• Branch profile · accredited · 3 complaints in 3 yearsView

  Complaint figure is the Atlanta HQ file’s total: the page data link this file’s complaints tab to that file (saved HTML, October 28, 2026).

• Branch profile · accredited · 3 complaints in 3 yearsView

  Its own complaints page returned 403 (human-verification check), so the 3 complaints were not read. The HQ address is the parent’s Atlanta address; Clark has no Georgia location.

Door-to-door sales: Yes

Door-to-door: yes. Clark states in its own BBB replies that it runs seasonal door-to-door campaigns through contracted third-party sales teams. It also sells through inbound calls, free inspections and termite (WDO) inspectors; Indeed lists WDO Sales Representative and Commercial Sales Representative roles. Solicitor permits were not checked (city-level).

• “Clark Pest Control seasonally contracts with third-party sales teams to conduct door-to-door campaigns in residential ar”

  bbb.org · retrieved October 28, 2026⁸

  Company’s own words (BBB replies, 2025-2026), repeated in several replies.

• “Clark Pest Control conducted a door-to-door sales campaign in REMOVEDneighborhood on August 10, 2026.”

  bbb.org · retrieved October 28, 2026⁹

  Company reply to a 2026 complaint; similar replies cite campaigns on 01/29/2026 and 05/16/2026.

• “They have some young kids doing door to door sales”

  google.com · retrieved October 28, 2026¹⁰

  Google review on the Lodi corporate-office listing.

• “On 5/19/26 a door-to-door salesperson knocked despite my posted no-soliciting sign.”

  bbb.org · retrieved October 28, 2026¹¹

  BBB review.

• “they are going around door to door today pitching their services”

  facebook.com · retrieved October 28, 2026¹²

Contract terms and pricing

• Company-stated minimum term: residential recurring plans are sold as 12-month / one-year agreements (Clark BBB replies, 2023-2026).⁹

  “On June 29, Mr. REMOVEDsigned a 12-month REMOVEDagreement with Clark Pest Control”

  Scored: Sales and contract fairness (−1)

• Company-stated early cancellation fee of $199 (several Clark BBB replies, 2025-2026).^{8, 11, 13}

  “our representative reviewed the terms and conditions of the service including the early termination fee of $199.00”

  Scored: Sales and contract fairness (−2)

• Other company-stated early cancellation / “early reimbursement” fees: $247.50, $297.50, $500 (“standard”) and $600, depending on the account (Clark BBB replies). The terms are described as including “an early reimbursement fee if the agreement is terminated before the end of the specified period”.^{8, 9}

  “Our terms of service include an early reimbursement fee if the agreement is terminated before the end of the specified period.”

  Scored: Sales and contract fairness (−2)

• Website Terms of Use: mandatory binding arbitration (AAA) and class-action waiver for “any dispute or claim relating in any way to your access or use of the Website or to any other aspect of your relationship with Clark Pest Control of Stockton, Inc.”; 30-day opt-out by email; exclusive venue in Georgia courts.¹⁴

  “You acknowledge and agree that any dispute or claim relating in any way to your access or use of the Website or to any other aspect of your relationship with Clark Pest Control of Stockton, Inc. will be resolved by binding arbitration,”

  Scored: Sales and contract fairness (−0.5)

• Service terms allow changes to recurring rates, announced in an annual newsletter (company BBB reply, 2026).⁹

  “While our service terms allow for adjustments to recurring rates, with rate changes communicated through our annual newsletter notifications”

• Door-to-door plans are billed automatically each month (e.g. $59 initial service, $119 recurring services billed as $59.50 monthly) (company BBB reply).⁹

  “enrolled in a monthly REMOVEDplan with an initial service fee of $59 and recurring service fees of $119, to be paid automatically in monthly billing payments of $59.50.”

• The residential service agreement itself is not published on the website; Clark’s replies refer to signed agreements (“service agreement”, “terms and conditions of the service”). Renewal and cancellation-channel terms are not stated anywhere found.¹³

  “our representative reviewed the terms and conditions of the service”

Status and expiry dates are shown exactly as the issuing agency’s record showed them on the date retrieved.

Only resolved government actions count toward the score. Pending lawsuits, allegations and private matters are listed here but marked “N/A” (not counted in the score). Summaries are our researchers’ wording of the source; allegations are allegations, not findings.

• October 28, 2026 · BBB of Northeast California · Complaint summaryScored: Complaint record

  BBB HQ file (California and Nevada locations): 36 complaints in 3 years, 13 in 12 months; A+, accredited; 34 published, none unanswered.⁹

  See bbb.

• May 19, 2026 · Ventura County Agricultural Commissioner (California); DPR county civil-penalty list · EnforcementN/A

  County agricultural commissioner civil penalty, Ventura County: NOPA EA-56-2026-037 against “CLARK PEST CONTROL-NEWBURY PARK”; incident date May 19, 2026; code section 3CCR 6616; final fine $250. Matched by license number SPCB branch office 4973 Newbury Park. Minor administrative penalty.⁹⁴

  The file has no address column; one NOPA = one case; dated by incident date (no final date in the file).

• November 19, 2025 · Superior Court of California (civil enforcement by 12 county District Attorneys, led by Contra Costa and San Mateo) · SettlementScored: Legal and regulatory record (−2)

  The People of the State of California v. Clark Pest Control of Stockton, Inc.: stipulated final judgment and permanent injunction (entered Nov 19, 2025) with Clark Pest Control of Stockton, Orkin Services of California and Crane Pest Control (all Rollins, Inc.), resolving allegations of unlawful disposal of pesticides and hazardous waste and failure to protect customers’ private records, found in 2021-2022 dumpster audits of 40 dumpsters at 22 Clark and Orkin facilities. Total $3,150,000 ($2,017,000 civil penalties; $400,000 supplemental environmental projects; $400,000 compliance-measure credit; $333,000 investigative costs), shared among the three companies.^{6, 53, 93}

  Orange County DA release dated Nov 23, 2025 (captured by another agent October 12, 2026) and the BBB Government Action notice on Clark’s HQ profile (October 28, 2026). Clark’s share of the $3.15M is not stated. This is a different matter from the Sept 2026 $3.15M Terminix/Rentokil DA settlement (CBS/KTLA snippets in the same search).

• November 19, 2025 · Solano County Agricultural Commissioner (California); DPR county civil-penalty list · EnforcementN/A

  County agricultural commissioner civil penalty, Solano County: NOPA EA-48-2025-077 against “CLARK PEST CONTROL OF VACAVILLE INC.”; incident date November 19, 2025; code section FAC 12973; final fine $250. Matched by license number SPCB branch office 3435 Vacaville. Minor administrative penalty.⁹⁴

  The file has no address column; one NOPA = one case; dated by incident date (no final date in the file).

• August 27, 2025 · Solano County Agricultural Commissioner (California); DPR county civil-penalty list · EnforcementN/A

  County agricultural commissioner civil penalty, Solano County: NOPA EA-48-2025-066 against “CLARK PEST CONTROL OF VACAVILLE INC.”; incident date August 27, 2025; code section 3CCR 6738; final fine $250. Matched by license number SPCB branch office 3435 Vacaville. Minor administrative penalty.⁹⁴

  The file has no address column; one NOPA = one case; dated by incident date (no final date in the file).

• July 11, 2025 · San Diego County Agricultural Commissioner (California); DPR county civil-penalty list · EnforcementN/A

  County agricultural commissioner civil penalty, San Diego County: NOPA EA-37-2025-145 against “CLARK PEST CONTROL OF STOCKTON INC.”; incident date July 11, 2025; code section FAC 11701.5; final fine $450. Matched by license number DPR PCB 36865. Minor administrative penalty.⁹⁴

  The file has no address column; one NOPA = one case; dated by incident date (no final date in the file).

• June 4, 2025 · Merced County Agricultural Commissioner (California); DPR county civil-penalty list · EnforcementN/A

  County agricultural commissioner civil penalty, Merced County: NOPA EA-24-2025-012 against “CLARK PEST CONTROL (MERCED)”; incident date June 4, 2025; code section 3CCR 6738.1(a); final fine $500. Matched by license number SPCB branch office 4530 Merced. Minor administrative penalty.⁹⁴

  The file has no address column; one NOPA = one case; dated by incident date (no final date in the file).

• April 29, 2025 · San Diego County Agricultural Commissioner (California); DPR county civil-penalty list · EnforcementScored: Licensing and compliance (−0.5)

  County agricultural commissioner civil penalty, San Diego County: NOPA EA-37-2025-076 against “CLARK PEST CONTROL OF STOCKTON INC.”; incident date April 29, 2025; code section 3CCR 6738; final fine $500. Matched by license number SPCB branch office 5119. Minor administrative penalty.⁹⁴

  The file has no address column; one NOPA = one case; dated by incident date (no final date in the file).

• February 21, 2025 · Cal/OSHA (via federal OSHA establishment data) · EnforcementN/A

  OSHA/Cal-OSHA complaint inspection 348054768 (opened Feb 21, 2025) at Clark Pest Control of Stockton, Inc., Bakersfield, California: closed with 3 other-than-serious citations, $555 in current penalties; no serious, willful or repeat citations.⁹⁶

  Third-party mirror of DOL OSHA data (osha.gov establishment search shows a human check). Not “Serious”, so not a licensing and compliance item.

• December 23, 2024 · Butte County Agricultural Commissioner (California); DPR county civil-penalty list · EnforcementScored: Licensing and compliance (−0.5)

  County agricultural commissioner civil penalty, Butte County: NOPA EA-04-2024-021 against “CLARK PEST CONTROL - CHICO”; incident date December 23, 2024; code section FAC 12973; final fine $250. Matched by license number SPCB company registration PR 226. Minor administrative penalty.⁹⁴

  The file has no address column; one NOPA = one case; dated by incident date (no final date in the file).

• December 3, 2024 · San Diego County Agricultural Commissioner (California); DPR county civil-penalty list · EnforcementScored: Licensing and compliance (−0.5)

  County agricultural commissioner civil penalty, San Diego County: NOPA EA-37-2025-022 against “CLARK PEST CONTROL OF STOCKTON INC.”; incident date December 3, 2024; code section FAC 12978.7; final fine $350. Matched by license number DPR PCB 36865 (Clark Pest Control of Stockton Inc, San Diego County). Minor administrative penalty.⁹⁴

  The file has no address column; one NOPA = one case; dated by incident date (no final date in the file).

• December 3, 2024 · San Diego County Agricultural Commissioner (California); DPR county civil-penalty list · EnforcementScored: Licensing and compliance (−0.5)

  County agricultural commissioner civil penalty, San Diego County: NOPA EA-37-2025-025 against “CLARK PEST CONTROL OF STOCKTON INC.”; incident date December 3, 2024; code section FAC 12978.7; final fine $400. Matched by license number SPCB branch office 5119. Minor administrative penalty.⁹⁴

  The file has no address column; one NOPA = one case; dated by incident date (no final date in the file).

• October 3, 2024 · San Benito County Superior Court, California (case CU-24-00243 per the Trellis URL) · LawsuitN/A

  Lacorte, Jeanette v. Clark Pest Control of Stockton, Inc. et al.: breach of contract (commercial) case filed Oct 3, 2024 in San Benito County Superior Court, with class allegations (the docket lists hearings on motions to strike the class allegations, Feb 10 and Apr 7, 2025). Outcome not shown (docket last refreshed Mar 14, 2025). Pending/unknown private suit; not scored.⁹⁹

  A putative class action, not a settled one; private and unresolved on the record, so not scored.

• February 12, 2024 · U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Eastern District of California, Adv. No. 2:24-ap-02010 · LawsuitN/A

  Clark Pest Control of Stockton, Inc. v. Simonis: adversary proceeding brought by Clark in a Chapter 7 case (dischargeability, false pretenses/fraud); filed Feb 12, 2024, terminated Dec 20, 2024.⁹⁸

  Clark is the plaintiff; recorded for completeness, not scored.

• November 30, 2020 · Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, Case No. 20STCV45816 · LawsuitN/A

  Kathy Lowe v. Clark Pest Control of Stockton, Inc. et al.: civil complaint filed Nov 30, 2020. Nature and outcome not shown on the docket summary.⁹⁷

  Private suit; not scored.

• December 31, 2015 · Structural Pest Control Board (California), Case No. 2016-35 · EnforcementN/A

  SPCB Accusation (filed Dec 31, 2015) against Clark Pest Control of Stockton, Inc. (PR 226, BR 2685), its qualifying manager and an operator, alleging an improper October 2013 wood-destroying-organism inspection report for a Fair Oaks property (unreported drywood termite and fungus damage) and failure to bring the property into compliance after a 2015 Board Report of Findings. Outcome not found (no decision PDF located).⁹⁵

  Found by trying the predictable SPCB file name pr-226_acc.pdf; re-read live October 28, 2026 (200). Filed more than 10 years ago; no decision found (verifier also probed pr-226_dec/_stip/_dad, all 404), so the outcome and its date are unknown and it is not scored (only resolved actions count).

• August 2, 2009 · Structural Pest Control Board (California) · EnforcementN/A

  Per the 2015 SPCB accusation, the company registration was suspended on Aug 2, 2009 under Code section 8690 (failure to maintain general liability insurance) and reinstated on Aug 18, 2009.⁹⁵

  More than 5 years old; not scored.

Workplace score: 6.0/10. It carries 10% of the Handshake Score when at least 20 employee reviews are on file (otherwise excluded and remaining weights renormalized).

Awards and certifications

None verified.

What the company says about itself

These are the company’s own claims, quoted from its materials. We haven’t verified them.

• Serves California and Nevada with 30+ branch offices, HQ in Lodi, California.²

• More GreenPro-certified technicians than any other pest control company (not verified on the NPMA GreenPro site).²

• QualityPro certified (not verified on the NPMA QualityPro site).¹⁰⁶

• Results guarantee.²

• “One of the largest pest control companies in the United States – and the biggest in the west.”¹⁰⁶

• Operating footprint outside the 24 covered states: none found (California and northwestern Nevada only).⁴

Mentions

Reddit hasn’t been searched for this company yet.

31 locations on file in California (30), Nevada (1).

Overall confidence in this score: High, 11 of 11 points.

Gaps in the record

• clarkpest.com Terms of Use forbid automated access (“Use any automated means to access this Website... robots, spiders, scripts”); earlier captures by other agents (about page, Brooks page, October 11, 2026/12) are reused. Location pages, guarantee page, Pest-Away service page and careers site were not read.
• Residential service agreement not published: auto-renewal and cancellation channel unknown; minimum term and fees come from Clark’s own BBB replies.
• Yelp returns 403: only search-snippet ratings (Sacramento 3.1/88), not scored. Angi, HomeAdvisor, Thumbtack: no Clark profile surfaced in searches. Facebook /ClarkPest reviews page returned “This Page Isn’t Available”. Nextdoor not checked.
• Glassdoor blocked (403 “Humans only”); snippet only (3.1 from 119), not scored. RepVue/Comparably: no profile found.
• San Diego failed to load three times (network errors).
• San Diego office (12220 World Trade Dr) has no SPCB branch-office registration of its own in the DCA file; it appears to operate under the company registration / BR 5119 (county penalty rows). Not treated as a licensing problem. Clark site also lists Clovis, Milpitas, Ventura and Reno location pages whose addresses could not be read (site terms); the Reno address 4607 Aircenter Cir appears only on BBB.
• SPCB discipline: only pr-226_acc.pdf (2015 accusation) found by file-name probing; no decision PDF and no BR-level accusation files were found; outcome of Case 2016-35 unknown. DCA detail pages are behind Turnstile.
• Nevada: NDA license 5922 matched by name only (report has no address); NDA enforcement not published. Washoe County courts not searched.
• BBB branch files: 14 checked. Concord, Livermore, Vacaville, Belmont and Santa Rosa mirror the Lodi HQ figures (A+, 36 complaints, 1.59 from 22). Nine A-rated files (San Jose, Salinas, San Leandro, San Mateo, three Fresno files, Merced and Sparks, Nevada) show the totals of a second HQ file, Clark Pest Control, Atlanta, Georgia. The Atlanta file’s complaints page returned 403, so its 3 complaints were not read and any overlap with the Lodi 36 is unknown.
• Court records: no statewide California search; only search-surfaced cases recorded (Lowe 2020, Lacorte CU-24-00243 with class allegations, Clark v. Simonis). No settled class action, AG or FTC action found. Contra Costa / San Mateo DA releases and the court judgment itself not opened.
• QualityPro and GreenPro claims not verified on NPMA sites.
• OSHA inspection 348054768: osha.gov establishment detail returned 405 to the automated browser; the figures rest on the blackbeltsafety.com mirror of DOL data.
• Nevada NDA license 5922: still matched by name only; it is the only “CLARK PEST CONTROL” company row in the 2026 report (other Clark rows are individuals at other companies). Positive record only, so no deduction rests on the match.

Open questions

• BBB: the Atlanta HQ file’s 3 complaints (unpublished; complaints page 403) may or may not overlap the Lodi file’s 36. Complaint record is 8.5 at either 36 or 39; only the rejected nine-separate-sets reading (63) would give 7.
• sales and contract fairness.arbitration: the Website Terms of Use arbitration clause reaches “any other aspect of your relationship” but is accepted by using the website; ruled true on the text.
• Clark’s share of the $3.15M DA judgment is not stated; the court judgment itself was not read.