DOJ announced that genetic testing company Illumina Inc. will pay $9.8 million to resolve allegations that it sold genomic sequencing systems with cybersecurity vulnerabilities to the various federal Departments and […]
The FCA’s qui tam provisions are intended to incentivize individuals who have legitimate information about fraud on the government that would otherwise go undetected to bring those issues forward. Increasingly, […]
Two recent settlements involving imports from the People’s Republic of China (“PRC”) illustrate the U.S. Department of Justice’s (“DOJ”) commitment to rapidly stepping up enforcement against tariff evasion and customs […]
On July 2, 2025, the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) announced the renewal of the DOJ-HHS False Claims Act Working Group, a partnership with the U.S. Department of Health and […]
As discussed here, there is new leadership at DOJ and last week we got insight into when DOJ is moved to exercise its dismissal authority under 31 U.S.C. § 3730(c)(2)(A). In […]
This past week saw a major change of the guard at the U.S. Department of Justice – one that may have significant impacts for the Civil Division’s use of the […]
In a May 19, 2025 memorandum, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche announced the Civil Rights Fraud Initiative, which aims to use the False Claims Act (FCA) to investigate and “pursue claims against any recipient of federal funds that knowingly violates federal civil rights laws” via “racist preferences, mandates, . . . and activities”—including diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs.
Last week, the Northern District of Illinois issued a significant opinion in a False Claims Act (“FCA”) qui tam action alleging a nationwide kickback scheme by a pharmaceutical manufacturer to […]
The Eleventh Circuit once again put effect to Rule 9(b), insisting on clarity and specificity in False Claims Act pleadings for them to survive. In Vargas v. Lincare, Inc., 24-11080, […]
This week, the Seventh Circuit reversed a conviction under the Anti-Kickback Statute (AKS) because the payments at issue—to advertisers—did not reflect an intent “to induce.” United States v. Sorensen, No. […]