Corporate Misconduct Accountability Project
Underwater Creations, Inc. · EPA Consent Agreement and Final Order
Underwater Creations Sold Illegal Pesticides as Aquarium Cleaners
Minnesota company distributed 345 unregistered pesticide products, mixing EPA-registered algicide into consumer cleaners without disclosure, risking aquarium owners’ health and pets for 13 months.
HIGH SEVERITY
TL;DR
Underwater Creations, Inc. sold five unregistered pesticide products to aquarium owners under the guise of simple cleaners. The company mixed EPA-registered algicide GLB Algimycin 600 into its Vibrant and Purge product lines without proper registration, then marketed them to eliminate algae and pests. Between January 2021 and February 2022, the company made at least 345 separate illegal sales. The EPA assessed a civil penalty of $226,652, but the fine may pale compared to revenue from hundreds of sales of products that should never have reached consumers.
This case reveals how consumer products can hide dangerous pesticides behind marketing buzzwords. Read on to understand what went wrong and what you can do.
345
Separate illegal sales of unregistered pesticides
5
Different unregistered pesticide products sold
$226,652
Civil penalty assessed by EPA
13 months
Duration of illegal sales period
The Allegations: A Breakdown
Core Allegations
What they did · 8 points
| 01 | Underwater Creations distributed five unregistered pesticide products between January 2021 and February 2022. The company sold Vibrant Reef at least 169 times, Vibrant Saltwater 65 times, Vibrant Freshwater 63 times, Expel 22 times, and Purge 26 times without EPA registration. | high |
| 02 | The company mixed EPA-registered pesticide GLB Algimycin 600 into its Vibrant product line. CEO Jeff Jacobson admitted to investigators that Vibrant Reef contained this registered algicide along with aspartic acid, bacteria water, and water. | high |
| 03 | Product labels made explicit pest-killing claims that triggered federal pesticide registration requirements. Bin labels promised customers could "say goodbye to algae, cloudy water and that grungy, dirty aquarium" and achieve an "algae free, vibrant aquarium." | high |
| 04 | The Expel and Purge products claimed to "safely remove pests from aquarium corals" and "flush your corals of those unwanted coral pests." Purge marketed itself as a "revolutionary in tank acropora eating flatworm destroyer." | high |
| 05 | Federal law requires any product containing a registered pesticide as an active ingredient to also be registered. Underwater Creations bypassed this requirement entirely, distributing hundreds of units to unsuspecting consumers. | high |
| 06 | The company had actual or constructive knowledge that consumers would use these products for pesticidal purposes. Marketing materials explicitly targeted algae and pest elimination, leaving no ambiguity about intended use. | high |
| 07 | Minnesota Department of Agriculture investigators collected labels, distribution records, receiving records, inventory records, and production records during an unannounced March 2022 inspection. The evidence documented a systematic pattern of illegal sales. | medium |
| 08 | Each separate sale constitutes an individual violation of federal law. With 345 documented distribution events, Underwater Creations committed hundreds of distinct violations of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. | high |
Regulatory Failures
How the system failed to catch this sooner · 6 points
| 01 | Illegal sales continued for over a year before enforcement action. The Minnesota Department of Agriculture did not conduct its inspection until March 2022, allowing 345 illegal sales to occur between January 2021 and February 2022. | high |
| 02 | The consent agreement allows the company to neither admit nor deny the factual allegations. This settlement mechanism lets corporations avoid a full public trial and the damaging publicity that might come with contested litigation. | medium |
| 03 | The maximum statutory penalty per violation is $24,255 for penalties assessed after December 2023. With 345 violations, Underwater Creations faced potential penalties exceeding $8 million, yet settled for just $226,652. | high |
| 04 | Shared enforcement responsibility between EPA and state agencies creates gaps in oversight. While the Minnesota Department of Agriculture conducted the physical inspection, the EPA handled penalty assessment, introducing delays into the enforcement process. | medium |
| 05 | No mechanism existed to alert consumers who already purchased the unregistered pesticides. The settlement contains no requirement for customer notification, product recall, or refunds to affected aquarium owners. | high |
| 06 | The settlement became effective immediately upon filing, with no public comment period. Affected consumers, retailers, and advocacy groups had no opportunity to challenge the adequacy of penalties or demand stronger remedies. | medium |
Profit Over People
The financial calculus behind illegal sales · 6 points
| 01 | Proper FIFRA registration requires scientific studies, label reviews, and state-level fees. Underwater Creations avoided these costs entirely by skipping registration, gaining an immediate cost advantage over law-abiding competitors. | high |
| 02 | The $226,652 penalty may represent a fraction of revenue from 345 illegal sales. If each sale involved multiple units at typical aquarium product prices, total revenue likely exceeded the fine substantially. | high |
| 03 | The company listed ingredient percentages on bin labels while omitting the presence of EPA-registered pesticide. Labels stated "95% Cultured Bacteria Blend, 1% Amino Acids, 0.5% Vinegar, 3.5% Other Ingredients" without disclosing the algicide component. | high |
| 04 | Marketing emphasized beneficial bacteria and amino acids while hiding the pesticide active ingredient. This deceptive labeling allowed the company to charge premium prices for what appeared to be natural, safe aquarium treatments. | high |
| 05 | Legitimate competitors who properly register their pesticides bear higher upfront compliance costs. Underwater Creations undercut honest businesses by avoiding registration expenses, creating unfair market conditions. | medium |
| 06 | The company continued sales for months after inspectors likely began their investigation. Distribution records show sales continuing through February 2022, even as the March 2022 inspection loomed. | medium |
Public Health and Safety
Real risks to consumers and aquatic life · 6 points
| 01 | Aquarium owners handled concentrated pesticide products without knowing they contained EPA-registered algicide. Consumers expected simple bacterial cleaners but actually used chemical pesticides requiring specific safety precautions. | high |
| 02 | Unregistered pesticides pose documented risks to aquatic ecosystems and water quality. Algae, coral reefs, and marine organisms are highly sensitive to chemical imbalances from potent algicides used without proper guidelines. | high |
| 03 | Workers at Underwater Creations handled pesticide-laced products during manufacturing and packaging. The consent agreement contains no information about whether employees received proper training or protective equipment for pesticide handling. | medium |
| 04 | Consumers may have disposed of pesticide-containing products down household drains. When multiplied across hundreds of sales, improper disposal of unregistered pesticides could contaminate municipal water systems and local aquatic habitats. | high |
| 05 | Pet owners faced financial and emotional harm from potential fish die-offs or coral bleaching. Aquarium hobbyists invest hundreds or thousands of dollars in livestock that could be killed by improperly used pesticide products. | medium |
| 06 | No safety data sheets or pesticide warning labels accompanied the products. Consumers lacked critical information about proper handling, storage, disposal, and emergency procedures required for pesticide products. | high |
Community Impact
How illegal sales hurt retailers and hobbyists · 5 points
| 01 | Small aquarium retailers stocked these products believing they were legitimate bacterial cleaners. Local pet stores now face damaged credibility with customers and potentially unsellable inventory after the EPA enforcement action. | medium |
| 02 | Retailers who distributed these products unknowingly participated in illegal pesticide sales. Even though distributors had no knowledge of violations, their businesses become associated with regulatory enforcement actions. | medium |
| 03 | Aquarium hobbyist communities rely on trust and shared knowledge about safe products. Corporate misconduct that conceals pesticide ingredients undermines the social fabric of these specialized communities. | medium |
| 04 | The company operated at 3420 Boone Avenue South in Saint Louis Park, Minnesota. Local community members may worry about environmental contamination from manufacturing operations producing unregistered pesticide products. | low |
| 05 | This enforcement action deepens public mistrust in both industry and government oversight. When corporations treat environmental regulations as optional obstacles, consumers grow cynical about all product safety claims. | medium |
Corporate Accountability Failures
Why the penalty falls short · 8 points
| 01 | The $226,652 penalty amounts to just $649 per violation. With 345 separate illegal sales, the per-violation fine represents less than 3% of the maximum statutory penalty of $24,255. | high |
| 02 | The settlement resolves only civil penalties for these specific violations. The consent agreement explicitly states it does not affect EPA rights to pursue criminal sanctions or equitable relief for other violations. | medium |
| 03 | Respondent waived its right to a hearing and to contest the allegations. The company gave up its right to appeal, ensuring quick resolution that avoids prolonged public scrutiny of internal business practices. | medium |
| 04 | EPA considered the size of the business and effect on ability to continue operations when calculating penalties. This consideration potentially reduced penalties below what the severity of violations would otherwise warrant. | high |
| 05 | The consent agreement becomes immediately effective upon filing. No waiting period or public review process allows affected parties to challenge whether penalties adequately deter future corporate misconduct. | medium |
| 06 | Payment must occur within 30 days of the filing date. Quick payment closes the case before public attention focuses on the inadequacy of penalties relative to hundreds of violations. | medium |
| 07 | Penalties are not tax deductible under federal law. However, this provision provides little additional deterrent effect when the base penalty already falls far short of maximum statutory amounts. | low |
| 08 | The settlement binds successors and assigns of the company. While this prevents corporate restructuring to avoid penalties, it does nothing to recover damages for consumers who purchased illegal products. | low |
Exploiting Delay
How time worked in the company’s favor · 5 points
| 01 | Sales began in January 2021 but inspection did not occur until March 2022. This 14-month window allowed the company to complete 345 illegal sales before regulatory intervention. | high |
| 02 | The consent agreement was not filed until September 2024. More than two years elapsed between the inspection and final enforcement action, during which the company potentially continued benefiting from prior illegal sales. | high |
| 03 | No interim measures halted sales while the investigation proceeded. The enforcement process imposed no immediate obligation to stop distributing unregistered products or notify existing customers of risks. | high |
| 04 | Respondent certified current compliance with FIFRA as part of the settlement. This certification came years after violations occurred, providing no assurance about what products the company sold in the interim period. | medium |
| 05 | Late payment penalties only begin accruing after 30 days. The gentle enforcement timeline gives the company a full month to arrange payment without any urgency or additional financial pressure. | low |
The Bottom Line
What this case reveals · 6 points
| 01 | Underwater Creations systematically sold unregistered pesticides to consumers for over a year. The company made 345 separate illegal sales of five different products containing undisclosed EPA-registered pesticide. | high |
| 02 | The $226,652 penalty likely represents a small fraction of revenue from illegal sales. Fines that fall short of profits create perverse incentives for corporations to view noncompliance as acceptable business strategy. | high |
| 03 | Consumers who purchased these products received no notification, refund, or remedy. The enforcement action protects the regulatory system but provides zero compensation to individuals who unknowingly bought illegal pesticides. | high |
| 04 | Limited regulatory resources allowed violations to continue for over a year. Shared enforcement between EPA and state agencies creates gaps where unscrupulous companies can operate with minimal oversight. | high |
| 05 | Settlement without admission of liability enables corporations to minimize reputational damage. The neither-admit-nor-deny formula lets companies pay fines while publicly maintaining they did nothing wrong. | medium |
| 06 | This case exemplifies how profit motives override corporate social responsibility. When registration costs can be avoided and penalties stay modest, some businesses will rationally choose noncompliance. | high |
Timeline of Events
January 2021
Underwater Creations begins distributing Expel, first documented unregistered pesticide sale.
February 2021
Company begins selling Vibrant Reef and Vibrant Saltwater, ramping up illegal distribution.
March 2021
Vibrant Freshwater and Purge products enter distribution, expanding unregistered pesticide lineup to five products.
March 23, 2022
Minnesota Department of Agriculture conducts unannounced inspection at Saint Louis Park facility, collecting labels and distribution records.
February 2022
Last documented sales of Vibrant products occur, marking end of 13-month illegal distribution period.
December 2021
Final documented sale of Purge product takes place.
September 20, 2024
EPA files Consent Agreement and Final Order assessing $226,652 civil penalty.
Direct Quotes from the Legal Record
QUOTE 1
CEO admission of pesticide ingredient
allegations
“Respondent’s Chief Executive Officer, Mr. Jeff Jacobson, informed MDA during the Inspection that Vibrant Reef, is made of a combination of Aspartic Acid, Bacteria Water/Culture, GLB Algimycin 600, and Water.”
💡 The CEO directly admitted the product contained EPA-registered pesticide GLB Algimycin 600, eliminating any ambiguity about the company’s knowledge.
QUOTE 2
Explicit algae-killing marketing claims
allegations
“You can say goodbye to algae, cloudy water and that grungy, dirty aquarium and say hello to that sparkling, crystal clear, algae free, vibrant aquarium you have always wanted!”
💡 The label made explicit pest elimination claims that trigger mandatory federal pesticide registration requirements under FIFRA.
QUOTE 3
Systematic pattern of violations
allegations
“Between February 9, 2021 and February 15, 2022, Respondent distributed or sold Vibrant Reef on at least 169 separate occasions.”
💡 The sheer number of illegal sales demonstrates this was systematic business practice, not an isolated error or oversight.
QUOTE 4
Company knowledge of pesticidal purpose
profit
“Respondent had actual or constructive knowledge that Vibrant Reef would be used, or was intended to be used, for a pesticidal purpose.”
💡 EPA explicitly found the company knew consumers would use these products as pesticides, establishing intent to circumvent registration requirements.
QUOTE 5
Pest removal marketing for Expel and Purge
allegations
“safely removes pests from aquarium corals… will flush your corals of those unwanted coral pests”
💡 Marketing language left no room for interpretation that these products targeted pest elimination, requiring FIFRA registration.
QUOTE 6
Flatworm destroyer claim
allegations
“PURGE is a new revolutionary in tank acropora eating flatworm destroyer. PURGE will flush your system of unwanted coral pest”
💡 Purge marketing explicitly called the product a pest destroyer, using language that unambiguously describes pesticide function.
QUOTE 7
Each sale is a separate violation
accountability
“Each of Respondent’s distributions or sales of the unregistered pesticide Vibrant Reef constitutes a separate unlawful act, in violation of Section 12(a)(1)(A) of FIFRA.”
💡 EPA established that 169 sales of Vibrant Reef alone meant 169 distinct violations, each carrying potential penalties up to $24,255.
QUOTE 8
Maximum penalty authority
accountability
“the Administrator of the EPA may assess a civil penalty against any registrant, commercial applicator, wholesaler, dealer, retailer, other distributor who violates any provision of FIFRA, of up to $24,255 for each offense”
💡 With 345 violations, Underwater Creations faced over $8 million in maximum penalties but settled for less than 3% of that amount.
QUOTE 9
Neither admits nor denies provision
accountability
“Respondent admits the jurisdictional allegations in this CAFO and neither admits nor denies the factual allegations in this CAFO.”
💡 This settlement language allows the company to pay a fine without publicly admitting wrongdoing, minimizing reputational harm.
QUOTE 10
No effect on consumer remedies
accountability
“Respondent’s full compliance with this CAFO resolves only Respondent’s liability for federal civil penalties for the violations alleged in this CAFO.”
💡 The settlement only addresses government penalties and provides no compensation or notification to consumers who bought illegal products.
QUOTE 11
Deceptive ingredient disclosure
profit
“Vibrant Ingredients: 95% Cultured Bacteria Blend 1% Amino Acids (Aspartic Acid) 0.5% Vinegar 3.5% Other Ingredients”
💡 The company hid the EPA-registered pesticide in the vague category ‘Other Ingredients’ while prominently featuring harmless-sounding bacteria and amino acids.
QUOTE 12
No public comment on settlement
delay_tactics
“This Consent Agreement and Final Order, as agreed to by the parties, shall become effective immediately upon filing with the Regional Hearing Clerk.”
💡 Immediate effectiveness prevents affected consumers, retailers, or advocacy groups from challenging the adequacy of penalties.
QUOTE 13
Scope of illegal sales
allegations
“During the Inspection, MDA collected distribution and production records showing that Respondent distributed or sold Purge on at least 26 separate occasions between March 18, 2021 and December 7, 2021.”
💡 Distribution records prove the company maintained systematic documentation of its illegal sales, suggesting deliberate business practice rather than oversight.
QUOTE 14
Current compliance certification
delay_tactics
“Respondent certifies that it is complying with FIFRA, 7 U.S.C. §§ 136–136y, and the regulations promulgated thereunder.”
💡 The company only certified current compliance in 2024, providing no accountability for what happened in the years between the 2022 inspection and settlement.
QUOTE 15
Penalty calculation factors
accountability
“In determining the penalty amount, Complainant considered the appropriateness of the penalty to the size of Respondent’s business, the effect on Respondent’s ability to continue in business, and the gravity of the violations.”
💡 EPA’s consideration of business impact likely reduced penalties below what the severity of 345 violations would otherwise justify.
Frequently Asked Questions
What products did Underwater Creations sell illegally?
The company sold five unregistered pesticide products: Vibrant Aquarium Cleaner in three varieties (Reef, Saltwater, and Freshwater), plus Coral Cleanse (also called Expel) and Purge V2 In Tank AEFW Treatment. All contained or made pesticide claims requiring EPA registration.
How many times did the company illegally sell these products?
EPA documented at least 345 separate illegal sales between January 2021 and February 2022. Vibrant Reef alone was sold 169 times, Vibrant Saltwater 65 times, Vibrant Freshwater 63 times, Purge 26 times, and Expel 22 times.
What dangerous ingredient did these products contain?
The Vibrant product line contained GLB Algimycin 600, an EPA-registered pesticide designed to control algae growth. The company’s CEO admitted to investigators that this registered algicide was mixed with aspartic acid, bacteria water, and other ingredients.
Why does it matter that these pesticides were not registered?
Federal law requires pesticide registration to ensure products are effective and do not pose undue harm to humans, animals, or the environment. Unregistered pesticides bypass safety testing, proper labeling, and usage guidelines that protect consumers.
How much did the company pay in penalties?
Underwater Creations agreed to pay $226,652 in civil penalties. With 345 violations, this amounts to just $657 per illegal sale. The company faced potential maximum penalties exceeding $8 million but settled for less than 3% of that amount.
Will consumers who bought these products get refunds?
No. The EPA settlement only addresses government penalties and does not require the company to notify customers, recall products, or provide refunds. Consumers received no direct compensation or remedy.
Did the company admit wrongdoing?
No. The consent agreement states the company neither admits nor denies the factual allegations. This settlement mechanism allows corporations to pay fines while avoiding public admission of illegal conduct.
How long did illegal sales continue before enforcement?
At least 13 months. Sales began in January 2021, and Minnesota inspectors did not conduct their investigation until March 2022. The final consent agreement was not filed until September 2024, more than two years after the inspection.
What risks do these unregistered pesticides pose?
Consumers handled concentrated pesticide products without proper safety warnings or instructions. Aquatic life in home aquariums could be harmed by improper use. Pesticides disposed down drains may contaminate municipal water systems when multiplied across hundreds of households.
What can I do if I purchased these products?
Stop using the products immediately. Contact the EPA Region 5 office to report your purchase and any adverse effects. Consider filing a complaint with your state attorney general’s consumer protection division. Advocate for stronger penalties and mandatory consumer notification in future enforcement cases.
A brief EPA press release on this story: https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-reaches-settlement-underwater-creations-inc-st-louis-park-minnesota-alleged
💡 Explore Corporate Misconduct by Category
Corporations harm people every day — from wage theft to pollution. Learn more by exploring key areas of injustice.
- 💀 Product Safety Violations — When companies risk lives for profit.
- 🌿 Environmental Violations — Pollution, ecological collapse, and unchecked greed.
- 💼 Labor Exploitation — Wage theft, worker abuse, and unsafe conditions.
- 🛡️ Data Breaches & Privacy Abuses — Misuse and mishandling of personal information.
- 💵 Financial Fraud & Corruption — Lies, scams, and executive impunity.
