Data Sources and Disclaimer

The docket records shown on this site come from CourtListener / RECAP (Free Law Project, a nonprofit organization). Free Law Project did not take part in, did not review and did not verify this site's statistics and presentation; the accuracy of the data itself is subject to the public court records.

This site presents public records at the docket level only (docket number, court, filing date, party names, nature-of-suit classification, etc.) and does not reproduce the text of the documents.

A public record is not itself a finding of fact: the existence of an entry in a docket does not mean that any party has been found to bear responsibility.

The tool page's determinations rest on two kinds of basis — the literal wording of public texts (the documents listed below) and whether that wording has appeared in public dockets; they do not cite any platform's internal rules, and they do not represent the views of any platform.

Each match therefore states its source tier: "Regulatory text" means the wording appears in the public texts listed below; "Case-record mentions" means the wording has appeared in public dockets (with a search query you can check yourself) — ⚠️ the latter only shows that it "has appeared"; it is not a regulatory characterization of any kind.

The documents below are external pages; clicking one takes you off this site.

• EPA《Pesticide Devices: A Guide for Consumers》
• EPA 公告：宣称杀灭微生物的器械
• EPA：经农药处理的消费品（treated articles）

Which courts we collect. Today: the Northern District of Illinois, the Southern District of Florida, the Southern District of New York and the Central District of California. Filings in any other court are not in our records.

How often. A collection round is intended to run every two hours, and each round looks at recent filings. The home page states when the last successful round finished — that timestamp, not a promise, is what the freshness of everything else follows from.

What can be missing even inside those courts. A brand-new case may be filed before its nature-of-suit code is entered, and our collection is filtered by the trademark code — so a case can stay invisible to us until that code appears. Some dockets carry no documents at all in RECAP, and we work at docket level only. Filings older than the collection window are not revisited. And matching is literal overlap: if a complaint writes a brand differently from your listing, it will not match.

What that means when you search. A hit tells you the wording appears in a record we collected. A miss does not mean that no case exists — it means nothing in our collection matched.

How complete this is, as measured. For the week of 15–23 October 2026 we compared the dockets CourtListener returns for the phrases these filings share in their case name against the dockets we hold for the same week. The first comparison gave 52 against 68 — roughly three quarters. Read that as an order of magnitude rather than a recall figure: the first side counts every court, the second counts what we happen to hold. We re-measure and update this line instead of leaving an old number here, and the two search phrases we use are named in the paragraph above.

A failed read and "no data at the moment" are two different things, and the pages state them separately.

If you believe a record is inconsistent with the public court record, or should not be presented by this site: the public court record controls — this site does not assert the final accuracy of the records.

⚠️ We do not currently offer a dedicated channel for correction requests (opening one would require adding a column to the database, which is a migration step only a human can perform).

Until that channel exists, we make no promise about the correction process — rather than write a sentence we cannot deliver on, we would rather state the situation as it is.

This site does not publish an operating entity or contact details — we only build a public-information tool, and we do not pile personal data onto the site.

This site only summarizes and presents public records, and makes no evaluation of, and no characterization of, any party; for decisions about a specific matter, please consult a professional with the appropriate qualifications.