Tens of Millions of Robocalls Selling Septic Tank Cleaner — to Numbers on the Do Not Call List

Environmental Safety International, Inc., known as ESI, sold septic tank cleaning products to homeowners across the country, according to a federal complaint, using illegal robocalls placed on a scale that included tens of millions of calls to phone numbers listed on the National Do Not Call Registry.DOCUMENTED The company's telemarketer worked alongside ESI to generate that call volume, according to the FTC.DOCUMENTED

In July 2021, the owners of the New Jersey-based company agreed to a permanent ban on telemarketing and will pay more than $1.6 million to settle the charges, with the settlement additionally requiring the defendants to turn over a residential property.DOCUMENTED

What the complaint alleges

According to the FTC, ESI and its telemarketer placed illegal robocalls to consumers to sell septic tank cleaning products, with the volume of calls to numbers on the Do Not Call Registry alone reaching tens of millions.DOCUMENTED The Telemarketing Sales Rule generally prohibits prerecorded message calls to consumers who have not given prior express written consent, and separately prohibits any telemarketing calls, prerecorded or live, to numbers registered on the Do Not Call list — meaning ESI's alleged conduct implicated the rule on two independent grounds simultaneously.REVIEWED

A family business built around a niche product

Septic tank cleaning products occupy a narrow but persistent consumer market: homeowners with septic systems, rather than municipal sewer connections, represent a smaller and more specifically identifiable customer base than most consumer products target, making a company like ESI's reliance on a targeted robocall campaign a particularly efficient way to reach exactly the homeowners most likely to need the product.REVIEWED That same targeting efficiency, however, does not exempt the company from Do Not Call requirements — a homeowner with a septic system who has registered their number with the national list retains the same legal protection against unwanted telemarketing calls as any other consumer.

Why three brothers were each named individually

Naming Joseph Carney, Sean Carney, and Raymond Carney individually, rather than pursuing only the corporate entity, reflects the FTC's consistent approach in cases involving closely held, family-run operations: when a small number of individuals control both the underlying business and its marketing practices, an order binding only the corporate entity risks allowing those same individuals to simply restart under a new corporate name after the original company dissolves or is banned.REVIEWED Personal liability for all three brothers, along with the requirement that they surrender a residential property, extends the settlement's reach beyond whatever assets remained inside the corporate entity alone.

Terms of the settlement

Under the settlement, ESI and the three Carney brothers are permanently banned from telemarketing of any kind, not merely telemarketing related to septic tank products specifically.DOCUMENTED The defendants agreed to pay more than $1.6 million and to turn over a residential property as part of the settlement, funds the FTC directs toward consumer redress for those affected by the illegal robocall campaign.DOCUMENTED

The illegal robocalls reached tens of millions of numbers on the national Do Not Call Registry — numbers whose owners had specifically opted out of exactly this kind of telemarketing.

Why the case matters

For consumers who continue to receive unwanted robocalls despite registering their number with the National Do Not Call Registry, the ESI case is a reminder that registry violations remain a routinely enforced and independently actionable violation of federal law, regardless of how narrow or specialized the product being marketed happens to be. A company's belief that its product serves a genuine consumer need does not exempt it from the same telemarketing rules that apply to every other business calling consumers who have opted out.

What made the residential property forfeiture unusual

Requiring the defendants to surrender a specific residential property, rather than accepting only a monetary judgment, reflects the same aggressive asset-collection posture seen in other FTC telemarketing cases where regulators have identified concrete, traceable property purchased with proceeds from the underlying scheme. Real estate is generally easier for a receiver to locate and liquidate than cash that may have already been spent or transferred, making a specific property forfeiture a more reliable way to convert a judgment into actual funds for consumer redress than a monetary figure alone.

Why septic system owners remain a recurring telemarketing target

Homeowners with septic systems represent a narrower, more specifically identifiable market than general home maintenance products, since septic system ownership can often be inferred from property records and rural or suburban zoning patterns, giving telemarketers an efficient way to build a targeted call list. That same targeting specificity is part of why this niche has drawn repeated telemarketing enforcement over the years, since a company confident it has identified a receptive audience has less incentive to filter out numbers registered on the Do Not Call list before dialing. A permanent, industry-wide telemarketing ban, rather than a septic-product-specific restriction, ensures the three brothers cannot simply pivot the same aggressive calling tactics into a different product category once this settlement takes effect. Consumers who register their number with the National Do Not Call Registry retain that protection regardless of how narrow or seemingly niche the product being marketed happens to be. That protection exists independent of whether the calling company believes its product serves a genuine, unmet need. A quick search of a company name alongside "complaints" before agreeing to any purchase remains a low-cost check available to every homeowner weighing a similar pitch. A moment of research beforehand costs far less than the cleanup of an unwanted purchase pushed through by an aggressive robocall campaign.

Have documents relevant to this story? Reach us through our tips channel.