The EcoShield lawsuits center on a single allegation: that EcoShield Pest Solutions locks customers into subscription pest control contracts through door-to-door sales and then charges an undisclosed cancellation fee, labeled an “Annual Commitment Discount Payback,” when they try to leave. Two consumer class actions are active as of mid-2026, one in federal court in Arizona and one in Georgia, and Michigan’s attorney general has already forced the company to change its contracts and offer refunds to affected residents.
What EcoShield Is Accused of Doing
Every consumer case against EcoShield turns on the same pricing mechanism. When a customer signs up, usually after a door-to-door pitch, EcoShield discounts the first service visit. In Denver, plaintiffs say the initial visit drops from $500 to $350. In Atlanta, the discount is $250 off the first service.1
The fee shows up on the way out. According to the complaints, when a customer cancels, EcoShield demands repayment of that original discount. Refuse, and the account is sent to a third-party debt collector. Patrick Shaffer, the Colorado plaintiff, paid $150 to a collector in February 2025 to protect his credit. Stephen Nelson, the Georgia plaintiff, paid $250 that appeared on his invoice as an “Annual Commitment Discount Payback.”
Plaintiffs argue the fee is not disclosed where a customer would look for it. EcoShield’s written service agreement lists fees for late payments, bounced checks, and collection costs but says nothing about a cancellation charge. The repayment obligation appears instead in a separate “Notice of Right to Cancel” section, which states that customers who cancel after the initial service are “responsible for payment of the costs of the Initial Service and any Discounts.”
The Active Consumer Class Actions
Lamonica v. The Shield Companies (Arizona)
The main consumer case moving forward is Lamonica et al. v. The Shield Companies, LLC et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-02151-SMB, filed June 19, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona before Judge Susan M. Brnovich. The named plaintiffs now include Nicholas Lamonica, Valerio Bruscianelli, Joel Walma, and Rebekah Walma. Michael Clemente, an original plaintiff, was terminated from the case.
The defendants are Robert Douglas Cardon and Gregory Nygren personally, The Shield Companies, The Shield Co Management, The Shield Co Marketing, and regional EcoShield LLCs covering Chicago, Detroit, and New Jersey. The claims include unjust enrichment, violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, and requests for declaratory and injunctive relief.
The case survived the defendants’ first challenge. Defendants moved to dismiss in October 2025. After the plaintiffs filed a Third Amended Complaint on June 9, 2026, Judge Brnovich denied that motion as moot on June 15, 2026. An earlier stay for mediation was lifted after mediation failed. Gianaris Trial Lawyers is soliciting additional class members nationwide, though no court has certified a class yet.
Nelson v. EcoShield Pest Solutions Atlanta (Georgia)
Stephen Nelson v. EcoShield Pest Solutions Atlanta, LLC et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-03988-SEG, was filed July 18, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. Nelson is represented by Wittels McInturff Palikovic with co-counsel Weiner & Sand LLC.
The complaint names the Atlanta LLC, The Shield Companies, The Shield Co Management, Cardon, and Nygren. It asserts breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, conversion, and violations of the Georgia Fair Business Practices Act along with equivalent consumer protection statutes in 24 other states. Nelson seeks actual damages, treble damages under Georgia law, and injunctive relief on behalf of a nationwide class. The case remains pending.
The Dismissed Shaffer Case
An earlier lawsuit, Shaffer v. EcoShield Pest Solutions Denver, LLC et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-01057, was filed April 3, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado. It sought at least $5.5 million for a nationwide class of customers charged cancellation fees despite subscribing for at least one year, with claims under the Colorado Consumer Protection Act and the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act. The case was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice on June 23, 2025. The same law firm refiled the theory as the Nelson case in Georgia less than a month later.
Michigan Attorney General Action
Michigan is the one state where regulators have already extracted a remedy. On April 24, 2024, Attorney General Dana Nessel issued a cease and desist order to EcoShield Pest Solutions Detroit, LLC for violations of the Michigan Home Solicitation Sales Act and the Michigan Consumer Protection Act. The state cited contract language that tried to waive the three-day right to cancel by claiming an “alleged emergency,” provisions denying refunds for services rendered before a timely cancellation, and a missing notice of cancellation form.
On June 20, 2024, the matter was resolved through an Assurance of Voluntary Compliance and Discontinuance filed in the 30th Judicial Circuit Court in Ingham County. EcoShield agreed to stop using the old contracts and adopt compliant language. The company also agreed to refund any Michigan consumer who could show, by December 31, 2024, that they had been denied cancellation rights under the Home Solicitation Sales Act. That refund window has closed.
The Door-to-Door Sales Complaints
The alleged fee is one piece of a broader pattern described in the complaints. EcoShield sells through door-to-door representatives who, according to the Lamonica complaint, create urgency by pitching “limited-time” discounts that are actually standard contract terms. Customers say they were told the service was “easy to cancel” or “month-to-month” when the contracts were in fact 12-month or 24-month commitments with automatic renewal clauses. Contracts were often presented on digital tablets showing only a signature field, without the full terms on screen.
The Lamonica complaint also alleges that sales reps failed to give the oral notice of a three-day right to cancel required by the FTC’s Cooling-Off Rule for door-to-door sales. That same failure drove the Michigan enforcement action.
Complaint volume has been substantial. The Nelson complaint cited EcoShield’s Trustpilot page at 1.3 stars across 431 reviews, with 86 percent one-star ratings. The Better Business Bureau profile for EcoShield’s Illinois location logged 61 complaints over three years, and a Virginia BBB profile showed a 1.35-star average.
Who Is Actually Being Sued
“EcoShield” is a brand, not a legal entity. At the top of the structure is The Shield Companies, LLC, an Arizona LLC owned by Cardon and Nygren. The Shield Companies is the sole member of The Shield Co Management, LLC, which manages the regional operating LLCs that use the EcoShield name in cities like Denver, Atlanta, Detroit, Chicago, and elsewhere. On May 6, 2024, Cardon and Nygren assigned the “EcoShield” trademark to The Shield Companies.
All of the regional locations share a single customer service line and a single corporate address in Gilbert, Arizona. The Shaffer and Nelson complaints allege that the entities “operate as a single fictitious entity or brand” and act as “mere instrumentalities and alter egos of one another.” That theory is why the lawsuits reach past the local LLC to name Cardon, Nygren, and the parent companies personally.
One footnote on the corporate history: Massey Services of Orlando bought EcoShield’s Atlanta and Austin operations in June 2015 and its Oklahoma City division in November 2015. Those were sales of specific market territories, not of the EcoShield brand, which has continued under Cardon and Nygren.
A Separate Case: Washington Employee Settlement
If you’re looking for the EcoShield lawsuit and you land on the Dykstra case, that one is not about customers. Dykstra v. The Shield Co Management, LLC, Case No. 24-2-05701-3 KNT, filed in King County Superior Court in Washington, is an employment class action alleging the company imposed noncompete covenants on employees earning less than twice the state minimum wage, which Washington’s RCW 49.62.070 prohibits.
A $924,000 settlement received preliminary approval on March 10, 2026. About 462 current and former Washington employees who worked for the company between March 14, 2021, and March 10, 2026, and earned below the statutory threshold are eligible for roughly $1,225 each. No claim form is required. The opt-out and objection deadline was May 26, 2026, and a final approval hearing before Judge Nikole Hecklinger is set for July 24, 2026.
If You Were Charged an EcoShield Cancellation Fee
Save the invoice or collection notice showing the “Annual Commitment Discount Payback” charge, along with your original signed contract and any sales materials you were given at the door. Note the date of the initial service and the date you canceled. If you paid the fee, keep proof of payment.
Michigan residents who were denied cancellation rights had until December 31, 2024, to submit refund claims under the attorney general’s settlement, so that route has closed. For customers in other states, the Lamonica case in Arizona and the Nelson case in Georgia are the active vehicles; neither class has been certified yet, and any recovery depends on those cases advancing. Plaintiffs’ counsel in the Lamonica case is Gianaris Trial Lawyers, and the Nelson case is handled by Wittels McInturff Palikovic with Weiner & Sand LLC.