Orkin vs. Aptive Pest Control

Orkin does not publish prices; cost is quoted locally.³

Residential guarantee: free re-service between scheduled treatments and a money-back guarantee (company terms).¹⁰

The About page describes the residential money-back guarantee as 30 days.³

Orkin says its commercial ‘Triple Guarantee’ includes a 2-hour response/24-hour on-site guarantee, reimbursement of regulatory fines caused solely by pests, and three 60-day complimentary-service guarantees (company terms).¹⁰

Introductory promotion shown on the homepage: $50 off the first recurring service.⁶

Rollins (parent) says its pest and termite services are performed under contracts that specify pricing.⁴

Customer report (Eugene, Oregon Google review): a 30-day cancellation notice is required.¹¹

Customer report (Everett, Washington Google review): about a 40% price increase within a year, attributed to a contract price-increase clause.¹²

Customer report (Kent, Washington Google review): a one-time wasp treatment came with a 30-day warranty.¹³

Orkin’s official cancellation policy states that standard recurring residential pest control plans require a 12-month initial agreement, that customers must call 877-819-5061 or their local branch to cancel (no online self-service cancellation), and that canceling before the initial 12-month term ends requires paying the remaining balance under the service agreement.¹⁴

Orkin’s standard residential service agreement (form AG1218) includes a mandatory binding arbitration clause and class-action waiver.¹⁵

November 19, 2025 · SettlementScored: legal record

Superior Court of California (civil enforcement by 12 county District Attorneys incl. Orange, Contra Costa and San Mateo; Orkin Services of California)

The People of the State of California v. Clark Pest Control of Stockton, Inc. et al.: 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.). It resolved allegations of unlawful disposal of pesticides and hazardous waste in dumpsters, and of customer records discarded without shredding, found in 2021-2022 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. The DA said the companies cooperated.^{244, 245, 246}

April 18, 2022 · SettlementScored: legal record

U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (national; parent Rollins Inc.)

Rollins Inc., Orkin’s parent, agreed to pay an $8 million civil penalty, without admitting or denying the findings, to settle SEC charges that it made unsupported reductions to accounting reserves in Q1 2016 and Q2 2017 to round up reported EPS to meet analyst estimates. Its then-CFO paid $100,000. This concerns financial reporting, not pest-control service.²⁴³

October 28, 2026 · Complaint summaryShown only

Colorado Department of Agriculture pesticide enforcement (Colorado)

No Orkin, Rollins or Orkin-franchise entry appears in the Colorado Department of Agriculture’s published tables of finalized pesticide enforcement actions for state fiscal years 2022, 2024 and 2025 (July 2021 to June 2025, as rendered). The SFY 2023 link on the enforcement page returned “not found”.^{267, 268, 269}

October 28, 2026 · Complaint summaryShown only

Arizona Office of Pest Management adjudicated complaints (Arizona)

The Arizona Office of Pest Management shows no adjudicated complaints in the last 3 years for Orkin’s business license 4029 (Phoenix, with the Gilbert, Peoria, Phoenix and Scottsdale branch offices) or license 10479 (Tucson).^{230, 231}

October 19, 2026 · EnforcementShown only

Texas Department of Agriculture, Structural Pest Control Service (Texas)

TDA warning (no penalty), case 00049517, against ORKIN LLC (Travis County license: Austin): INCOMPLETE/INCORRECT USE RECORDS; date final October 19, 2026. A warning with no penalty is recorded, not scored.²⁶¹

October 16, 2026 · Complaint summaryShown only

Missouri Attorney General (Missouri)

KY3 reports that the Missouri Attorney General’s Office opened an investigation after a Springfield woman said an Orkin technician pressured her into signing a pest-control contract costing more than $21,000. The Attorney General said her office has received several complaints about the Orkin branch in Springfield and that the case is in mediation; Orkin says it is working with the customer to resolve the issue. Pending: no settlement or order yet, so not scored.²⁶³

October 11, 2026 · Complaint summaryShown only

Washington (WSDA pesticide enforcement)

No action naming Orkin, Rollins, Surety Pest Control, Crazy Frog Pest Control, Acurid, Sawyer or PNWPestSolutions appears in WSDA’s published pesticide enforcement action lists for 2019 through Q3 2026.²⁵⁴

October 11, 2026 · Complaint summaryShown only

Idaho (BBB Great West + Pacific; Orkin Idaho / Sawyer, Inc.)

The BBB profile for Orkin Idaho (Garden City) shows 0 complaints and 0 reviews.²⁵⁵

June 17, 2026 · EnforcementShown only

Texas Department of Agriculture, Structural Pest Control Service (Texas)

TDA administrative penalty, case 00049084, against ORKIN LLC (Ector County license: Odessa branch): “OPERATING WITHOUT A LICENSE”; penalty $1,000.00; date final June 17, 2026. Under $5,000 with no settlement or judgment: a minor administrative penalty.²⁶¹

June 10, 2026 · EnforcementShown only

Texas Department of Agriculture, Structural Pest Control Service (Texas)

TDA warning (no penalty), case 00049353, against ORKIN LLC (Harris County “ORKIN LLC #877” license: Houston branch #877): TERMITE DISCLOSURE DOCUMENT VIOLATIONS; date final June 10, 2026. A warning with no penalty is recorded, not scored.²⁶¹

June 2026 · LawsuitShown only

Louisiana, Orleans Parish Civil District Court (private suit)

The owners of Fat River Farm, an organic garden in New Orleans’ Lower 9th Ward, won a jury verdict against Orkin LLC after an Orkin technician who had gone to the wrong address fogged their crops with a broad-spectrum pesticide in April 2022. The Lens reports a $332,300 judgment and that Orkin says the ruling is wrong and intends to appeal. Private suit, not final: shown, not scored.²⁶²

April 15, 2026 · EnforcementShown only

U.S. Federal Trade Commission (national; parent Rollins, Inc.)

The FTC issued an administrative complaint (April 15, 2026) and, after public comment, finalized a consent order (June 22, 2026; Commission vote 2-0) requiring Rollins, Inc. (Orkin’s parent) to stop enforcing noncompete agreements against more than 18,000 employees nationwide and to notify current and former workers. The complaint alleged the agreements typically barred pest-control work for two years within 75 miles of any Rollins location. A resolved government order against the parent about employment agreements, not consumer sales.^{264, 265, 266}

February 12, 2026 · Complaint summaryShown only

national (Rollins 10-K)

The parent’s 2025 10-K says it faces routine claims, including representative or class wage-and-hour claims, California PAGA claims, and claims that services did not work. No specific Orkin matter is named as material.⁴

January 16, 2026 · EnforcementShown only

Texas Department of Agriculture, Structural Pest Control Service (Texas)

TDA warning (no penalty), case 00048983, against ORKIN LLC (Tarrant County “ORKIN COMMERCIAL SERVICES” license): FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH TRAINING OR SUPERVISION REQUIREMENTS; date final January 16, 2026. A warning with no penalty is recorded, not scored.²⁶¹

December 4, 2025 · EnforcementShown only

Texas Department of Agriculture, Structural Pest Control Service (Texas)

TDA warning (no penalty), case 00047921, against ORKIN LLC (Ector County license: Odessa branch): OPERATING WITHOUT A BUSINESS LICENSE and OPERATING WITHOUT A BUSINESS LICENSE; date final December 4, 2025. A warning with no penalty is recorded, not scored.²⁶¹

October 27, 2025 · EnforcementShown only

Solano County Agricultural Commissioner (California)

County agricultural commissioner civil penalty, NOPA EA-48-2025-070 (SCP), against “ORKIN PEST CONTROL (5237)” (SPCB branch office BR 5237); incident date October 27, 2025; code section(s) 3CCR 6738; fine $250. Under $5,000 with no settlement or judgment: a minor administrative penalty.²⁶⁰

October 1, 2025 · EnforcementShown only

Orange County Agricultural Commissioner (California)

County agricultural commissioner civil penalty, NOPA EA-30-2026-072 (SCP), against “ORKIN EXTERMINATING COMPANY #802” (SPCB branch office BR 5681); incident date October 1, 2025; code section(s) FAC 12973; fine $250. Under $5,000 with no settlement or judgment: a minor administrative penalty.²⁶⁰

September 23, 2025 · EnforcementShown only

Solano County Agricultural Commissioner (California)

County agricultural commissioner civil penalty, NOPA EA-48-2025-068 (SCP), against “ORKIN PEST CONTROL (5257)” (SPCB branch office BR 5257); incident date September 23, 2025; code section(s) 3CCR 6738; 3CCR 6678; fine $500. Under $5,000 with no settlement or judgment: a minor administrative penalty.²⁶⁰

September 3, 2025 · EnforcementShown only

Orange County Agricultural Commissioner (California)

County agricultural commissioner civil penalty, NOPA EA-30-2026-068 (SCP), against “ORKIN PEST CONTROL STRUCTURAL REGISTRAION for Main and Branches” (SPCB company registration PR 6199: Orkin’s main registration, “for Main and Branches”); incident date September 3, 2025; code section(s) FAC 12978.7; fine $250. Under $5,000 with no settlement or judgment: a minor administrative penalty.²⁶⁰

July 24, 2025 · EnforcementShown only

Solano County Agricultural Commissioner (California)

County agricultural commissioner civil penalty, NOPA EA-48-2025-046 (SCP), against “ORKIN PEST CONTROL (5257)” (SPCB branch office BR 5257); incident date July 24, 2025; code section(s) 3CCR 6678; 16CCR 1983; 3CCR 6738; fine $750. Under $5,000 with no settlement or judgment: a minor administrative penalty.²⁶⁰

July 23, 2025 · EnforcementShown only

Sacramento County Agricultural Commissioner (California)

County agricultural commissioner civil penalty, NOPA EA-34-2026-004 (ACP), against “Orkin Pest Control (BR5640) Stockton” (SPCB branch office BR 5640); incident date July 23, 2025; code section(s) 3CCR 6726; fine $250. Under $5,000 with no settlement or judgment: a minor administrative penalty.²⁶⁰

July 10, 2025 · LawsuitShown only

U.S. District Court, N.D. Georgia (1:25-cv-03819), FLSA 29 U.S.C. 216(b) action

Charles v. Orkin, LLC: FLSA minimum-wage/overtime suit filed July 10, 2025 against Orkin, LLC and Rollins, Inc.; 30 other individuals filed consents to join. On the defendants’ consent motion, the court on Aug. 28, 2025 stayed proceedings through Dec. 1, 2025 and administratively closed the case, stating the closure is not a dismissal. The order says that if no request to reopen is made by Dec. 8, 2025, the case will be considered dismissed with prejudice. The docket shows no later entries; no settlement or outcome is shown.²⁴⁷

July 8, 2025 · EnforcementShown only

San Diego County Agricultural Commissioner (California)

County agricultural commissioner civil penalty, NOPA EA-37-2025-134 (SCP), against “ORKIN PEST CONTROL” (SPCB branch office BR 5260); incident date July 8, 2025; code section(s) 3CCR 6738; fine $250. Under $5,000 with no settlement or judgment: a minor administrative penalty.²⁶⁰

May 5, 2025 · EnforcementShown only

Orange County Agricultural Commissioner (California)

County agricultural commissioner civil penalty, NOPA EA-30-2026-032 (SCP), against “ORKIN PEST CONTROL #724” (SPCB branch office BR 5249); incident date May 5, 2025; code section(s) 3CCR 6726; fine $250. Under $5,000 with no settlement or judgment: a minor administrative penalty.²⁶⁰

February 26, 2025 · EnforcementUsed in licensing and compliance

Orange County Agricultural Commissioner (California)

County agricultural commissioner civil penalty, NOPA EA-30-2026-019 (SCP), against “ORKIN PEST CONTROL #724” (SPCB branch office BR 5249); incident date February 26, 2025; code section(s) 3CCR 6726; fine $250. Under $5,000 with no settlement or judgment: a minor administrative penalty.²⁶⁰

January 22, 2025 · EnforcementUsed in licensing and compliance

San Bernardino County Agricultural Commissioner (California)

County agricultural commissioner civil penalty, NOPA EA-36-2025-031 (SCP), against “ORKIN PEST CONTROL” (SPCB branch office BR 5530); incident date January 22, 2025; code section(s) 3CCR 6678; 16CCR 1983(c); fine $500. Under $5,000 with no settlement or judgment: a minor administrative penalty.²⁶⁰

December 10, 2024 · EnforcementShown only

San Bernardino County Agricultural Commissioner (California)

County agricultural commissioner civil penalty, NOPA EA-36-2025-030 (SCP), against “ORKIN PEST CONTROL” (PCB 45953: a DPR license number not matched to Orkin’s SPCB records); incident date December 10, 2024; code section(s) 3CCR 6726; 3CCR 6738; fine $500. Under $5,000 with no settlement or judgment: a minor administrative penalty.²⁶⁰

November 5, 2024 · EnforcementUsed in licensing and compliance

San Diego County Agricultural Commissioner (California)

County agricultural commissioner civil penalty, NOPA EA-37-2025-017 (SCP), against “ORKIN PEST CONTROL” (SPCB branch office BR 5745); incident date November 5, 2024; code section(s) FAC 12978.7(d); fine $350. Under $5,000 with no settlement or judgment: a minor administrative penalty.²⁶⁰

September 23, 2024 · EnforcementUsed in licensing and compliance

Kern County Agricultural Commissioner (California)

County agricultural commissioner civil penalty, NOPA EA-15-2025-028 (SCP), against “ORKIN PEST CONTROL - VISALIA” (SPCB branch office BR 5636); incident date September 23, 2024; code section(s) 3CCR 6726; fine $250. Under $5,000 with no settlement or judgment: a minor administrative penalty.²⁶⁰

May 2024 · EnforcementShown only

Maine Board of Pesticides Control (Orkin, LLC DBA Mainely Ticks, Wells, Maine)

Proposed administrative consent agreement summary (file dated May 2024): the staff summary counts 461 violations: pesticide applications in 2021 and 2022 by two company applicators who were certified but not licensed with the company, plus seven label violations for spraying in rain in Sanford, Maine, in April 2022. The summary says the employees were removed and that staff negotiated the settlement with Orkin and Rollins management with guidance from the Attorney General’s office. The penalty amount is not in the summary, and the board’s final acceptance was not confirmed.²⁵⁹

July 31, 2019 · LawsuitUsed in sales and contract fairness

Mississippi (arbitration; Biloxi)

An arbitrator ordered Orkin to pay a Biloxi couple more than $1.9 million, finding fraud by withholding material facts in a transferred termite contract that did not cover Formosan termites.²⁴⁸

May 2016 · EnforcementShown only

Maine Board of Pesticides Control (Orkin Exterminating Company Inc., Portland, Maine branch)

Proposed administrative consent agreement in a May 2016 board-meeting packet: in October 2015 an Orkin applicator treated a non-customer’s home in Sweden, Maine, by mistake, without the owner’s authorization and without positively identifying the treatment site. Orkin acknowledged treating the wrong property. The proposed penalty is $1,000. The document is unsigned; the board’s final acceptance was not confirmed.²⁵⁸

May 27, 2014 · LawsuitShown only

U.S. District Court, E.D. Washington (4:14-cv-05065)

Orkin, LLC v. Malek: Orkin sued a defendant for breach of contract in Washington. The case ended Nov. 13, 2014 with a stipulated final injunction and dismissal with prejudice. The complaint was not read.²⁵¹

August 9, 2013 · LawsuitShown only

U.S. District Court, W.D. Washington (3:13-cv-05683)

Griswold v. Orkin, LLC: employment civil-rights case (nature of suit 442), filed Aug. 9, 2013 and terminated Jan. 15, 2015. Outcome not shown on the docket page.²⁵²

February 19, 2013 · LawsuitShown only

U.S. District Court, W.D. Washington (3:13-cv-05116)

Simon v. Orkin, LLC: employment civil-rights case (nature of suit 442), filed Feb. 19, 2013 and terminated Oct. 21, 2013. Outcome not shown on the docket page.²⁵³

November 18, 2010 · LawsuitShown only

Iowa (federal jury; Bettendorf)

A federal jury ordered Orkin to pay nearly $129,000 for termite damage after finding negligent misrepresentation.²⁵⁰

November 17, 2007 · SettlementShown only

Florida (Tampa)

Orkin paid a $2 million settlement after being accused of letting a Tampa apartment complex become infested by termites.²⁴⁹

December 27, 2001 · SettlementShown only

Multistate attorneys general: New York, Florida, North Carolina, Ohio, Texas and the District of Columbia (no Washington, Oregon or Idaho)

Orkin Exterminating Company settled cases with five states and D.C. over termite-service advertising. The states alleged that Orkin claimed its “Orkin Foam System” would keep termites from returning, which could not be substantiated, and that its ads implied a full warranty it did not offer. The settlement bars unsupported efficacy claims and misstatement of guarantee terms, requires a “limited guarantee” or “limited warranty” disclosure on any advertised guarantee, and lets consumers with disputes under $10,000 use cheaper consumer arbitration. Orkin paid $150,000 for investigation costs.^{256, 257}