EPA Enforcement Under Trump 2.0: What Regulated Industries Need to Know

/in , , ,

The Trump administration’s second term has brought notable changes to environmental enforcement priorities at the Environmental Protection Agency. Recent data shows a shift in the mix of enforcement actions, with changes to both agency resources and enforcement philosophy that chemical manufacturers and other regulated industries should understand.

Enforcement Activity: A Mixed Picture

Recent enforcement data shows divergent trends across different types of actions:

Civil Judicial Cases Down: In the administration’s first six months, the Justice Department initiated 14 lawsuits for environmental violations, compared to 42 in Trump’s first term and varying numbers under previous administrations, as reported by USA Today. By eight months, DOJ had initiated 9 major civil cases on behalf of EPA, compared to 46 in the same timeframe under Biden and 53 during the equivalent period in Trump’s first term, according to the Washington Post.

Settlements have also decreased. Through the first eight months, Justice completed 28 environmental enforcement cases, compared with 81 under Biden and 80 in the first Trump administration during the same period.

Administrative Actions Stable: EPA maintains that administrative enforcement actions—which handle smaller offenses without court involvement—have remained steady or increased. The agency’s administrative case metrics match or exceed past presidencies, according to EPA statements. According to figures EPA provided to Inside EPA, the agency concluded 126 national-priority civil enforcement cases between January 20 and May 7, 2025, up from 97 cases over the same period in 2024.

Criminal Enforcement Claims: EPA asserts it has opened more environmental criminal cases in its first six months than the Biden administration. However, publicly available data does not yet confirm this—the most recent criminal cases in public databases date to 2023, making independent verification difficult at present.

Long-Term Context: Civil judicial cases have trended downward for over a decade. The Obama administration filed 102 lawsuits in the first six months of its first term in 2009, representing the peak of this enforcement metric. Every subsequent administration has seen declines, partly reflecting resource constraints across multiple administrations.

Staffing and Resource Changes

EPA and DOJ enforcement offices are undergoing significant personnel changes. EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance budget has decreased by approximately $200 million since 2011 (inflation-adjusted), with staffing reduced by over 500 employees across multiple administrations, USA Today reported. The current administration is pursuing a 23 percent staff reduction at EPA—approximately 4,000 positions.

The Department of Justice’s environmental enforcement section has also experienced staff reductions. Reports indicate the unit’s attorney count dropped from approximately 120 earlier in 2025 to an estimated 65-70 lawyers by mid-year.

The government shutdown in late 2025 temporarily furloughed approximately two-thirds of surveyed EPA enforcement staff, according to union data. These furloughs affected inspections and case work during the shutdown period.

Policy Changes and Enforcement Priorities

The administration has established new enforcement priorities through formal guidance:

Environmental Justice Considerations: A March 2025 EPA memo states that “environmental justice considerations shall no longer inform EPA’s enforcement and compliance assurance work.” The memo specifies that enforcers will not consider whether affected communities are overburdened or vulnerable when making enforcement decisions.

In a statement to USA Today, the EPA described this as promoting equal treatment, adding that the agency will “make sure that enforcement targets the worst pollution and threats to human health, wherever they occur.”

Energy Production: The March memo establishes that “enforcement and compliance assurance actions shall not shut down any stage of energy production (from exploration to distribution) or power generation absent an imminent and substantial threat to human health.”

Enforcement Philosophy: In its statement, EPA added that its current focus is on “efficiently resolving violations and achieving compliance as quickly as possible rather than pushing for broad injunctive relief that goes beyond what the law requires.” The agency also told the Washington Post that it is “focused on statutory obligations and Presidential priorities.”

EPA defends its approach by noting that “civil judicial complaints filed are not the best measure of law enforcement or compliance with environmental laws” and points to administrative and criminal metrics as better indicators of enforcement activity. The agency states: “A focus on quick return to compliance and addressing clear violations will increase efficiency and ensure that the Agency is accountable to the American people for every dollar spent.”

Targeted Regulatory Relief

The administration has pursued an aggressive deregulatory agenda through executive orders and agency actions. Key developments include:

  • Air Quality Standards: EPA recently moved to roll back stricter particulate matter standards implemented under Biden, arguing the previous administration exceeded its authority without sufficient review. The Biden-era standard lowered acceptable soot levels from 12 to 9 micrograms per cubic meter—a change EPA projected would prevent up to 4,500 premature deaths by 2032.
  • Water Protections: EPA released a proposal to dramatically narrow Clean Water Act protections, potentially stripping safeguards from between 38 and 70 million acres of wetlands and countless stream miles. The proposed rule would limit federal jurisdiction only to wetlands with surface water during the wet season that directly connect to continuously flowing water bodies.
  • Industry-Specific Relief: President Trump has issued proclamations granting two-year regulatory exemptions to facilities deemed vital to national security, including coke oven operations, copper smelters, coal plants, and certain chemical manufacturers. These facilities can comply with pre-Biden standards during this relief period.
  • TSCA Delays: EPA delayed the effective date of several Toxic Substances Control Act rules to March 2025, including the TCE risk management rule, providing additional time for regulatory review.
The FIFRA Exception

Notably, EPA enforcement under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) has remained robust—and even intensified. As discussed in a previous post, from February through July 2025, EPA opened 84 FIFRA administrative enforcement cases with civil penalties, compared to 59 during the same period in 2024. Several 2025 FIFRA settlements rank among the largest on record.

This aggressive FIFRA enforcement continues despite broader budget cuts and deregulatory initiatives, suggesting pesticide compliance remains a priority focus area. EPA has also implemented an Expedited Settlement Agreement pilot program for minor FIFRA violations, offering discounted, non-negotiable settlements to streamline enforcement.

Strategic Implications for Compliance

The current enforcement environment presents several considerations for regulated entities:

Civil Judicial Enforcement: With fewer civil lawsuits being filed, companies face reduced likelihood of federal court actions in the near term.

Administrative Enforcement Continues: EPA maintains that administrative enforcement remains active and reportedly exceeds previous levels. These actions should not be underestimated—administrative penalties can reach high six- and low seven-figure amounts. Additional costs include attorneys’ fees, consultant expenses, and implementation of corrective measures. For product-based programs like TSCA, violations can result in loss of market access, stop-sale orders, and significant business disruption.

Alternative Enforcement Mechanisms:

State Enforcement: State agencies have primary enforcement authority for many environmental programs. However, many states have also experienced budget and staffing constraints in recent years, creating variability in state-level enforcement capacity.

Citizen Suits: Environmental statutes authorize private parties to bring enforcement actions. Organizations like the Environmental Integrity Project have filed federal lawsuits against industrial facilities for air and water violations. These citizen suits can result in penalties and requirements to install pollution controls.

Recent citizen suit examples include actions against petroleum coke plants in Louisiana, the Shell plastics plant in Pennsylvania, and food processing facilities for Clean Water Act violations.

Practical Considerations

For TSCA-regulated manufacturers and other chemical industry clients:

Compliance Planning: Environmental statutes and regulations remain in effect. Violations occurring now remain subject to administrative enforcement, citizen suits, and future enforcement actions. For TSCA matters, violations risk market access restrictions.

FIFRA Enforcement: Pesticide and antimicrobial enforcement remains robust, with an uptick in enforcement compared to 2024.

Alternative Enforcement: State agencies and citizen suits continue as enforcement mechanisms. Recent citizen suits have targeted petroleum coke plants, chemical facilities, and food processors.

Regulatory Relief: The administration has provided targeted relief including two-year exemptions for certain industrial facilities and delays of TSCA rule effective dates. Companies should evaluate whether their operations qualify.

Recommended Actions: Monitor regulatory developments, maintain compliance programs, document compliance efforts, assess citizen suit exposure, and consult counsel before operational changes.

This blog post is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

California Settles $1.75M Lawsuit Over False Plastic Bag Recycling Claims, Launches Another

/in , , , ,

California’s attorney general has reached a $1.75 million settlement with four plastic bag producers and initiated a lawsuit against three more, alleging that the companies falsely claimed their plastic bags were recyclable to comply with a state ban on single-use plastic bags known as SB 270.

According to the October 17, 2025, announcement, the defendants in both cases labeled their bags with the “chasing arrows” recycling symbol, made recyclability claims, and self-certified their products as recyclable.  However, when the attorney general’s office sent demand letters requiring that the producers substantiate their claims, they were allegedly unable to provide sufficient evidence.

“[D]espite the manufacturers’ claims and widespread consumer belief, these bags do not, in fact, appear to generally be recyclable, let alone ‘recyclable in the state,’ as SB 270 requires,” the announcement states.

California’s recycling authority, CalRecycle, has “released several reports indicating that the vast majority of plastic carryout bags in California are not being recycled in California,” the most recent complaint states.  Even plastic bags deposited in designated collection bins mostly “end up in landfills or incinerators or are shipped to other countries.”

In addition to violating SB 270, all defendants face alleged violations of California’s Environmental Marketing Claims Act, False Advertising Law, and Unfair Competition Law.  Some of the violations stem from alleged noncompliance with the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC’s) Green Guides, which are incorporated into California law.

The settlement is subject to court approval.  A copy of the proposed final judgement can be found here.

Forklift Companies Indicted for False “Made in USA” Claims and Tariff Evasion

/in ,

A federal grand jury in Colorado has returned an indictment against Endless Sales Inc., Octane Forklifts, Inc., and three company executives that sold forklifts to government agencies, charging the defendants with making fraudulent “Made in America” claims and evading tariffs.

According to the August 21, 2025, indictment, the defendants added Made in USA labels to the forklifts, forged certificates of origin, and told federal contracting officers that they were Buy American Act- and Trade Agreements Act-compliant, despite the fact that the forklifts were imported from China.  Employees and third parties were allegedly ordered to “de-Chinese” the forklifts by removing “decals, stickers, and inspections tags” showing their Chinese origin.

The indictment additionally alleges that the defendants misrepresented the value of their imports to US Customs and Border Protection, “thereby depriving the United States of over $1 million in applicable tariffs, duties, and fees.”  The imports allegedly took place from about October 2018 to June 2024.

Specific charges include conspiracy to commit wire fraud, wire fraud, making materially false statements, and conspiracy to enter goods into the United States by means of false statements.  Prosecutors seek forfeiture of all monetary gains related to the charges.  If convicted on the wire fraud charges, the company executives face a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison, with lesser sentences possible for the other charges.

More information is available in a Department of Justice press release.

“Made in the USA” Claims Face Renewed FTC Scrutiny

/in , ,

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has recently intensified enforcement of “Made in the USA” claims, signaling that such marketing representations remain a priority even amid broader deregulatory themes in the second Trump administration.   In July, the commission designated “Made in the USA Month” and used the occasion to highlight the legal standards companies must meet when promoting domestic manufacturing.

“It is important to protect Americans from deceptive advertising, and also important because it provides consumers with confidence that when they buy something that says ‘Made in the USA’ they are actually supporting American workers, American manufacturers, and American communities,” FTC’s July 1 press release stated.

Recent Enforcement Actions

Just days later, on July 8, FTC announced that it had issued warning letters to four manufacturers—Americana Liberty, Oak Street Manufacturing, Pro Sports Group, and USA Big Mountain Paper—for potentially deceptive US-origin claims.  “Companies that falsely claim their products are ‘Made in the USA’ can expect to hear from the FTC,” the commission warned.

FTC also notified Amazon and Walmart, urging them to strengthen oversight of “Made in the USA” representations made by third-party sellers on their platforms.

Legal Framework and Risk

Under the FTC’s 2021 Made in USA Labeling Rule, marketers must ensure that any unqualified “Made in USA” claim is backed by evidence showing that the product is “all or virtually all” made in the United States.  That requirement extends beyond final assembly—virtually all components must be US-sourced, and all significant processing must occur domestically.  FTC can seek civil penalties exceeding $50,000 per violation.

What Businesses Should Do Now

Companies making US-origin claims—whether on packaging, advertising, or e-commerce listings—should immediately assess whether those claims are substantiated and appropriately qualified.  Supply chain documentation, legal review of marketing copy, and platform-level seller oversight are all critical steps.  FTC’s recent actions make clear that “Made in USA” claims are no longer low-risk, especially for businesses operating under public scrutiny or national branding strategies.

For support with compliance reviews, developing lawful origin claims, or navigating FTC correspondence, our team is here to help.

EPA’s 2025 FIFRA Enforcement Trends

/in , ,

EPA has maintained a surprisingly aggressive enforcement posture under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) in 2025, even as broader deregulatory and budget-cutting initiatives move forward.  Data from the first part of the year suggest that civil enforcement remains vigorous across multiple sectors and may be exceeding levels seen in previous years.

Key Enforcement Activity

Increased Volume of Cases:  EPA’s Enforcement and Compliance History Online (ECHO) database indicates that 84 FIFRA administrative enforcement cases with civil penalties were opened from February through July 2025.  This represents a notable increase compared to the same period in 2024 and 2023, when approximately 59 and 51 cases were issued, respectively.

Rising Penalties:  EPA’s enforcement in 2025 has produced some of the largest FIFRA settlements on record.  In May, Costco Wholesale Corp. agreed to a $3.07 million settlement for selling unregistered antimicrobial gloves and misbranded air filters, failing to file import notices, and violating a stop‑sale order.  As part of the same enforcement action, Winix America settled for more than $1 million.  A third seven-figure settlement was reached with Stepan Co. for selling or distributing a misbranded pesticide.

Notices of Refusal of Admission:  EPA Region 8 has been actively monitoring pesticide imports along the northern border.  EPA’s administrative enforcement dockets webpage indicates that nearly 50 notices of refusal of admission have been issued in 2025 so far.

FIFRA Expedited Settlement Agreement Pilot Program

A significant number of civil penalties have been assessed through EPA’s Expedited Settlement Agreement (ESA) Pilot Program under FIFRA, launched in January 2025.  The program targets minor, easily correctable violations and provides discounted, non-negotiable settlements, in lieu of formal enforcement.  The pilot program is intended to streamline enforcement while prioritizing resource efficiency and deterrence.

This pilot program will remain available for 36 months from its approval date, with evaluation of its effectiveness slated after 30 months.  ESA penalties have generally ranged from several hundred to several thousand dollars.

Implications for Regulated Entities
  • Enforcement focus remains strong on labeling, registration, import compliance, and antimicrobial products.
  • The ESA Pilot Program may allow expedited resolution but applies only to specific, low-severity violations.
  • Companies should continue to operate under the assumption that enforcement remains robust.
Practical Steps

To manage enforcement risk:

  • Review labeling, registration status, and marketing claims for all pesticide and antimicrobial products.
  • Confirm compliance with import documentation such as notices of arrival and relevant filings.
  • Strengthen supplier and private-label compliance monitoring.
  • Conduct a proactive self‑audit under EPA’s Audit Policy, especially if potential minor violations are identified.
  • Evaluate whether any matters may qualify for the FIFRA ESA Pilot Program.
Final Thought

Despite changes in the regulatory landscape, 2025 shows that EPA’s FIFRA enforcement remains serious.  Taking preemptive steps can provide meaningful protection and potentially reduce enforcement exposure.

Environmental Compliance Under the Trump Administration: Why Maintaining Compliance and Self-Auditing Makes Business Sense

/in

The current federal enforcement climate may appear lenient, but the importance of environmental compliance under the Trump administration remains significant for regulated industries.  Short-term political shifts should not distract from long-term business, legal, and reputational realities.  Below are seven key reasons why companies should continue prioritizing compliance and consider proactive self-auditing during this administration—even amid reduced federal enforcement.

1. Enforcement Risk is Cyclical

Political cycles are short, and a change in administration or state leadership can quickly swing enforcement priorities back toward aggressive oversight.  EPA and state agencies often enforce against violations discovered long after they occurred.  Moreover, many states maintain aggressive enforcement regardless of federal posture, meaning state regulators may pursue violations even if EPA does not.  Short-term leniency today can turn into a costly liability tomorrow.

2. Civil and Criminal Liability Still Exist

Even in a softer federal enforcement climate, businesses remain at risk of significant civil penalties if violations are uncovered during inspections or deemed serious enough to warrant action.  Political priorities have no effect on criminal liability—knowing or willful violations can still lead to prosecution, including personal liability for executives.  Citizen suits under laws such as the Clean Water Act, RCRA, and the Clean Air Act also remain a powerful enforcement tool for NGOs and private parties.  On top of that, many insurance policies exclude coverage for pollution events tied to noncompliance, leaving companies financially exposed.

3. Regulatory Compliance is a Business Asset

Staying in compliance helps keep the permits and licenses that are essential for day-to-day operations, while avoiding the risk of suspension or revocation that can halt business entirely.  It also preserves enterprise value, since buyers, investors, and lenders closely review compliance history during mergers, acquisitions, or refinancing, and violations can lower a sale price or derail a deal altogether.  A strong compliance record can even provide a competitive edge, helping secure government contracts and attracting customers who prioritize environmental and social responsibility.

4. Market & Reputation Pressures Can Outweigh Federal Policy

Compliance is a market expectation.  Lenders, investors, and insurers increasingly require documented environmental compliance or strong ESG performance as a condition for doing business.  Public perception, shaped by media coverage and NGO activism, can inflict far greater damage to a company’s brand than an EPA fine ever could.  Supply chain dynamics add another layer of pressure, as large corporations often require vendors to meet standards that exceed federal regulations.  Ultimately, reputation and contracts depend on compliance more than who occupies the White House.

5. Self-Auditing Offers Strong Protections

Under EPA’s Audit Policy and many state laws, voluntarily disclosing violations can lead to reduced or eliminated penalties.  Some states also offer audit privilege, shielding certain findings from disclosure in enforcement actions.  Self-auditing demonstrates good faith to regulators, signaling a proactive compliance culture, while early detection of issues prevents them from escalating into costly enforcement or litigation.  A proactive audit today is almost always less expensive and safer than reacting to a violation tomorrow.

6. Risk Management and Cost Control

Compliance is cheaper to maintain than repair.  Strong compliance practices help prevent the sudden and expensive crises that can arise from noncompliance, such as emergency response actions and costly cleanups.  By identifying and addressing issues voluntarily, businesses can schedule fixes strategically, minimizing operational disruption and downtime.  Finally, self-directed compliance efforts provide cost certainty and tend to be significantly less expensive than making corrections under a consent decree.

7. Enforcement Can Escalate Mid-Administration

Lax enforcement is never guaranteed.  A major spill, accident, or environmental disaster can prompt regulators to pivot suddenly toward stricter oversight.  Public outrage and pressure from Congress can also compel the EPA or Department of Justice to target specific industries or facilities regardless of the administration’s general enforcement stance.

Closing Thought

Even with changes in federal enforcement policy, maintaining environmental compliance under the Trump administration is crucial to managing risks and protecting business value.  Taking a proactive approach through diligent compliance and self-auditing helps safeguard reputations and keep operations running smoothly.  Ultimately, a consistent commitment to environmental responsibility is the smarter, safer, and more cost-effective path forward.

CEH Sues Chemical Company over CDR Import Reporting Omissions

/in , , ,

The Center for Environmental Health (CEH) has sued AOC, LLC, a resins and specialty materials company, alleging that it failed to report imports under EPA’s Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) rule.  The Toxic Substances Control Act citizen suit is the latest of several complaints filed by CEH against chemical importers for alleged CDR violations.

CEH’s complaint, filed June 20, 2024, alleges that AOC imported hundreds of thousands of pounds of phthalic anhydride, neopentyl glycol, and dicyclopentadiene during the 2020 CDR reporting period.  However, despite the imports greatly exceeding CDR’s 25,000-pound threshold, the complaint claims that no evidence of the imports were found in EPA’s CDR database.

“CDR reporting is an essential tool for tracking the production and use of toxic substances,” the complaint states. “AOC’s failure to report large chemical imports under the CDR rule weakens the ability of EPA and local communities to evaluate and protect against serious threats to health.”

The complaint does not say how CEH identified the alleged imports.  However, the organization stated that it uncovered a previous violation through a “search of publicly available data” on chemical imports.

CEH filed similar complaints against three importers in June 2021.  A CEH notice also prompted the Chevron Phillips Company to disclose numerous violations concerning 24 chemicals in July 2021, according to a CEH press release.

Update

On October 30, 2024, CEH announced that it had filed additional suits against Entegris, Inc. and Lubrizol Corp. for alleged 2020 CDR reporting period violations.  According to the complaints, Entegris failed to report cobalt sulfate and phosphoric acid imports and Lubrizol failed to report 2-propylheptanol and di-(2-ethylhexyl)amine imports.

The press release also announced that CEH reached a settlement with AOC.  “[AOC’s] diligent response to CEH’s concerns is to be commended,” CEH attorney and former EPA official Bob Sussman said.

Kansas City Grocers Ordered to Stop Selling Illegally-Imported Disinfectants

/in , , ,

On May 6, 2024, EPA Region 7 announced that 17 grocery stores in the Kansas City area had been ordered to stop the sale and use of certain Fabuloso-brand cleaners and other disinfectants because of potential health risks.  The orders, issued by the Kansas and Missouri Departments of Agriculture in partnership with EPA, require the stores to immediately remove the illegal products from their shelves.

According to EPA’s press release, the products contain glutaraldehyde, an active ingredient not approved for household disinfectant use in the U.S. due to its potential health risks. These risks include “throat and lung irritation, asthma and difficulty breathing, dermatitis, nasal irritation, sneezing, wheezing, burning eyes, and conjunctivitis.”

EPA says that the products were illegally imported.  The press release states that their labels are primarily in Spanish and that the affected grocers “serve Hispanic communities.”

It is important to note that not all Fabuloso products are unsafe.  There is also an EPA approved US version of Fabuloso which does not contain glutaraldehyde.  According to the press release, some stores subject to the orders sold both the illegal and the approved US versions of the disinfectants.

EPA Settles with Slack Chemical Company Following Alleged EPCRA Violations

/in , , ,

On October 11, 2023, EPA announced a settlement with Slack Chemical Company, Inc. (“Slack”) following alleged violations of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) at two of the New York corporation’s facilities. The settlement includes a civil penalty of $231,300.

Under Section 313 of EPCRA, owners or operators of certain facilities are required to annually submit a Toxic Chemical Release Inventory Reporting Form R (“TRI Form R”) report for each chemical listed under 40 CFR 372.65 that was manufactured, processed or otherwise used in quantities exceeding a certain threshold. TRI Form R reports require information about on-site releases of the chemical into the environment, transfers of the chemical in waste to off-site locations, on-site waste treatment methods, and source reduction and recycling activities. Alternatively, owners or operators can opt to submit a simpler Toxic Chemical Release Inventory Reporting Form A (“TRI Form A”)  report when the quantity of the chemical manufactured, processed, or otherwise used is one million pounds or less, the total quantity released, disposed, and treated at the facility is 500 pounds or less, and the chemical is not considered to be of special concern. TRI Form R/Form A reports are due no later than July 1 for the preceding calendar year.

EPA alleges that Slack, which describes itself as a “chemical warehousing, repackaging and distribution company,” failed to submit timely TRI Form R/Form A reports at its Carthage and Saratoga Springs facilities for calendar years 2019 and 2021. More specifically, EPA alleges that Slack:

  • Submitted TRI Forms R or A for the chemical’s ammonia, methanol, nitric acid, and toluene at its Carthage facility and a TRI Form R for methanol at its Saratoga Springs facility on May 10, 2021, for calendar year 2019, approximately 10 months late; and
  • Submitted TRI Forms R or A for the same chemicals at the facilities on November 21, 2022, for the calendar year 2021, approximately 4.5 months late.

In a news release, EPA stated that Slack has “voluntarily instituted a corporate compliance plan to prevent recurrence of EPCRA reporting violations,” which includes a written procedure listing the steps needed to identify TRI chemicals and their quantities.

DOJ Files Lawsuit Against eBay for Environmental Violations

/in , , , ,

On behalf of EPA, the Department of Justice (DOJ) has filed a lawsuit against the online retailer eBay for selling and distributing “hundreds of thousands of products” that allegedly violate the Clean Air Act (CAA), the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), and the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).

DOJ first alleges that eBay violated the CAA by selling or causing the sale of over 343,000 automotive aftermarket defeat devices.  These devices, which are often advertised as vehicle power enhancers, “can cause motor vehicles to emit hundreds to thousands of times more pollution than a motor vehicle with properly functioning emission controls,” the complaint says.  DOJ alleges that each aftermarket defeat device sold, offered for sale, or caused to sell by eBay constitutes a violation of CAA section 203(a)(3)(B), which forbids selling or offering to sell a motor vehicle part that bypasses an emission-related element of design.

Second, the complaint alleges that eBay committed a series of FIFRA violations by selling or distributing a minimum of 23,000 unregistered, misbranded, or restricted use pesticide products.  DOJ also alleges 8,074 violations of a Stop Sale, Use, or Removal Order (SSURO) issued by EPA in 2020 (and amended in 2021), which identified some of these allegedly unlawful pesticide products.  Among the products sold in alleged violation of the SSURO was an insecticide containing dichlorvos, which DOJ characterizes as highly dangerous, and a “disinfection card” claiming to protect users from COVID-19 when worn around their neck.

Finally, eBay is being sued under TSCA for violating a 2019 rule prohibiting the manufacture, processing, and distribution of products containing methylene chloride for consumer paint and coating removal.  The TSCA section 6(a) rule was the result of EPA’s determination that those uses pose an unreasonable risk of injury to health due to methylene chloride’s acute human lethality.  According to the complaint, eBay has distributed over 5,600 items in violation of the rule.

The lawsuit seeks injunctive relief to prevent eBay from further selling products violating the CAA, FIFRA, and TSCA.  The complaint additionally requests civil penalties for each of the CAA violations, which could amount to $5,580 per violation.