I don't know what this means, but had an environmental lawyer PM me - perhaps they will post. This is probably well into larger fine category with the deception, misrepresentation and not just a simple mistake or not knowing. I am not on Facebook at all, but I guess that is a record of more intentional deceit. Said that some federal AGs might pick this up criminally, but that is less certain - consumer fraud for profit.
I am not a lawyer, EPA investigator or AG, so why knows, right? I am in real estate and I have personally seen cases where people are investigated by 5+ FBI agents and prosecuted by the Denver AG for $10-20k in mortgage fraud - the deterrent is worth the effort to some of these people.
Not a lawyer either but the EPA vs Aquarium is an interesting read. It parallels Vibrant pretty closely.
Some of the highlights:
Moreover, as Complainant correctly argues, under Section 152.15 of the FIFRA Pesticide Regulations, a product is intended for preventing and destroying pests if the seller claims, states or implies by labeling or otherwise that the product can or should be used as a pesticide.
The uncontested facts show that the label on the oxygenator
box states that the product acts on fungus and that the handle on the box sets out that the oxygenator eliminates slime build up on filter impellers. Further, the literature in the oxygenator box states that the product: acts on fungus;
inhibits the growth of hair algae and black algae; controls fungus; and eliminates slime build up on filter impellers. In light of this,
the labeling and literature accompanying the oxygenator make pesticidal claims and a reasonable person would conclude that the product is intended to be used as a pesticide. Therefore, the oxygenator is determined to be a pesticide as defined in Section 2(u) of FIFRA and Section 152.3(s) of the Regulations.
3. The Misbranding Violations Involving the Oxygenator
As seen from the statement of material facts, supra, the oxygenator label ·and accompanying literature do. not contain an Agency establishment number as required by Section 2(q) (D) of FIFRA
nor do they contain an ingredient statement showing the name and percentage of each active ingredient and the total percentage of all inert ingredients in the product, as required by Section 2(q) (2) (A} of FIFRA. Therefore, both the California and the Colorado sale of the oxygenator constitute the sale of a
misbranded pesticide in violation of Section 12 (a) (1) (E) of FIFRA. As a result, Aquarium is liable for the violations charged in Counts IV and V of the Complaint.6
In light of the above analysis and since Aquarium has admitted that the oxygenator
has not been registered as a pesticide, it must be and hereby is concluded that the Respondent is -liable as charged in Counts I and II of the Complaint, of selling an unregistered pesticide in violation of Section
12(a) (1) (A) of FIFRA.
