relator

Subscribe to relator via RSS

In a recent decision, the 11th Circuit reversed a lower court’s blockbuster ruling holding that the qui tam provisions of the False Claims Act violate the U.S. Constitution’s Appointments Clause. The appellate court left other key constitutional questions unanswered and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings, leaving the door open for further judicial consideration of the constitutionality of the qui tam provisions. The Eleventh Circuit’s September 1, 2026, opinion can be found here.

Continue Reading False Claims Act’s Qui Tam Provisions Survive Constitutional Challenge

Well-advised companies know that among their key corporate risks are potential liability exposures arising from or related to cybersecurity. A recent U.S. Department of Justice enforcement action highlights the fact that corporate cybersecurity risk may take a number of forms, including, as was the case in the recent matter, potential False Claims Act (FCA) liability for cybersecurity vulnerabilities in products sold to the federal government. The fact that the recent case, involving life sciences company Illumina, settled for $9.8 million, underscores the seriousness of this cybersecurity-related liability FCA exposure.

Continue Reading Cybersecurity and False Claims Act Liability Exposure

In numerous public statements, Trump Administration officials have said the Administration intends to use the False Claims Act (FCA) to enforce certain policy priorities. For example, in connection with statements concerning the Administration’s intent to combat “illegal DEI,” officials have declared that corporate DEI policies or practices violating anti-discrimination laws could trigger FCA liability.  There are a number of levels on which potential FCA liability represents a serious corporate liability risk, not least because of the possibility of whistleblowers (including company employees or competitors) launching FCA whistleblower claims. In addition, as discussed below, a recent Southern District of New York ruling highlights how potentially massive FCA liability can be.

Continue Reading More About the Trump Administration and Potential False Claims Act Liability

Earlier this month, when President Trump announced comprehensive tariffs, I speculated about whether or not the administration’s new tariff policy could create an environment that could lead to legal claims against some companies and their directors and offices. While I anticipated (and continue to anticipate) the possibility that there will be tariff-related D&O claims, one possibility I had not considered is the prospect that the new U.S. tariff regime could lead to increased number of tariff-related False Claims Act claims.

In an interesting April 16, 2025, memo, the Nixon Peabody law firm explains how “evasion of tariff requirements, including via false representation of countries of origin and undervaluation or misclassification of goods, creates the risk of substantial liability under the False Claims Act.” The law firm’s memo can be found here. (Hat Tip: John Jenkins of The CorporateCounsel.net Blog, who linked to the law firm memo in his April 23, 2025, post on the blog.)

Continue Reading Trump’s Tariffs and the Risk of False Claims Act Liability

More than once I have had occasion to write about qui tam actions on this site, primarily in connection with the complicated insurance coverage questions the cases can present. Now, in unexpected and provocative ruling, a federal district court judge has held the False Claims Act’s qui tam provisions to be unconstitutional. While just the opinion of a single district court judge, and therefore without precedential effect outside of the federal district in which it was rendered, the ruling nonetheless is groundbreaking and potentially significant. The potential significance of this development is discussed below. A copy of Middle District of Florida Judge Katherine Kimball Mizelle’s September 30, 2024, opinion can be found here.

Continue Reading Federal Court Holds False Claim Act’s Qui Tam Provisions Unconstitutional