United States: CIVIL FALSE CLAIMS ACT: Little-Noticed Aspect Of Recent Third Circuit Decision Could Have Big Impact On False Claims Act Cases

Since its issuance last week, the Third Circuit's decision in United States ex rel. Customs Fraud Investigations, LLC v. Victaulic Co., No. 15-2169, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 18026 (3d Cir. Oct. 5, 2016), has engendered considerable interest for its ruling with respect to reverse false claims liability in the growing arena of False Claims Act ("FCA") cases arising out of the failure to pay customs duties.  In that regard, the court interpreted a 2009 amendment to the FCA's reverse false claims provision in the expansive manner advocated by both the relator and the United States.  The decision therefore is unwelcome news for importers who have been facing an onslaught of FCA actions. 

Troubling as that circumstance may be for businesses attempting to comply with complicated customs regulations, another aspect of the decision may be even more consequential, with an impact felt by defendants across the entire spectrum of FCA cases.  In particular, the court appears to have sanctioned the use by relators (and the government) of untested "statistical" allegations to satisfy Rule 8(a) and 9(b) pleading standards.  If so, the court may have made it much easier for FCA plaintiffs to withstand motions to dismiss in the very large and complex cases where pleading discipline is needed most—to rein in speculative allegations and the enormous discovery burdens that inevitably follow.  We focus on that aspect of the Victaulic decision in this Alert.   

Background of the Case

Fitting another emerging trend that deserves scrutiny in its own right, the Victaulic case was filed by an entity—Customs Fraud Investigations, LLC ("CFI")—that apparently was created for the sole purpose of pursuing qui tam claims.  In its complaint, CFI alleged that Victaulic, a pipe fittings manufacturer, had violated the FCA's "reverse false claims" provision, which imposes liability on a defendant who "knowingly makes, uses, or causes to be made or used, a false record or statement to conceal, avoid, or decrease an obligation to pay or transmit money or property to the Government." 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1)(G). 

An importer is obliged to pay a "marking duty" if imported goods are not marked with country-of-origin information before they are released into the stream of commerce in the United States.  CFI alleged that Victaulic engaged in a ten-year scheme to defraud the government by importing pipe fittings without disclosing that the fittings were improperly marked (or unmarked) and without paying marking duties.  CFI did not claim to have any inside company information to support its claims.  Instead, CFI admittedly based its FCA allegations on a supposed statistical analysis involving: (1) CFI's review of shipping data that it had purchased through a subscription service, and CFI's conclusion from those data that Victaulic imported the majority of its pipe fittings from outside of the U.S.; and (2) CFI's conclusion, following its analysis of a "sample" comprised of postings and photos on eBay, that virtually none of the Victaulic products were properly marked with their country of origin.

Initially, the district court dismissed the complaint for failing to satisfy the Twombly/Iqbal standard for plausibility.  Then, the district court denied CFI's attempt to amend the complaint on the grounds that the motion to amend was not timely, did not satisfy Rule 9(b), and, in any event, would have been futile because any failure to mark the goods would not give rise to reverse false claims liability.  Throughout, the district court found serious flaws with CFI's allegations, including CFI's failure to demonstrate that any of the unmarked pipe fittings it identified in its survey were not U.S.-made and CFI's failure to show that Victaulic had not paid marking duties on any fittings imported from abroad.     

On appeal, the United States filed an amicus curiae brief solely to challenge the district court's ruling that omission of country of origin markings could not give rise to FCA liability.  In a split decision, the Third Circuit reversed the district court.  In so doing, not surprisingly, the court generally adopted the United States' position that the alleged conduct would be actionable as a reverse false claim.  Keying in on the 2009 FERA amendments to the FCA, which added an express definition of the term "obligation," and a Senate Report discussing the definition of "obligation," the appellate court held that "[t]he statutory text, legislative history, and policy rationale underlying the regulatory scheme all lead to one conclusion: reverse false claims liability may attach as a result of avoiding marking duties." Victaulic, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 18026, at *28-29.  Many observers have commented on this aspect of the decision and noted its significance to cases basing FCA violations on such marking omissions. 

The Court's Plausibility Ruling May Make It Much Easier for Relators to Survive Motions to Dismiss

Beyond its interpretation of Section 3729(a)(1)(G), the Third Circuit also addressed the plausibility of CFI's sweeping allegations of fraud.  In so doing, the court determined that CFI's allegations passed muster under Rule 8(a) because they were supported by a so-called statistical analysis.  The court's acceptance of CFI's untested methodology for pleading purposes—absent any other indicia of fraud—is remarkable, and it likely will spur other relators to present equally speculative and unsupported allegations in the belief that such claims can survive early dismissal motions.  This outcome could change the landscape for FCA litigation (particularly in cases alleging widespread fraudulent schemes) and may inhibit the ability of defendants and the courts to weed out speculative claims at the pleading stage.

Giving a nod to this concern—and perhaps prompted to do so by the arguments of a dissenting panelist (as discussed below)—the Third Circuit noted: "[t]he District Court was skeptical of the validity of CFI's methods of determining whether Victaulic had imported unmarked goods.  We, too, are skeptical."  Id. at *33.  The Third Circuit also stated that "[t]here is little evidence to show that CFI's unusual procedure of reviewing eBay listings is an accurate proxy for the universe of Victaulic's products available for sale in the United States."  Id.  Yet, remarkably, the Third Circuit reasoned that "such skepticism is misplaced at the Rule 12(b)(6) stage" and "CFI's [amended complaint] contains just enough ... to allege a plausible course of conduct by Victaulic to which liability would attach."  Id. at *33, 35. 

While the Third Circuit noted that there is "great expense and difficulty that may accompany False Claims Act discovery and . . . burden on defendants and their shareholders and investors of having unresolved allegations of fraudulent conduct in pending proceedings," id. at *35-36, it seemingly did not appreciate that such burden, difficulty, and expense is exactly why "skepticism" must be explored at the pleading stage.  Instead of dismissing the complaint under Rules 8(a) and 9(b), the Third Circuit looked to "controlled discovery" as a panacea for such concerns.  Id. at *37.

Dissent Explains the Flaws and Dangers Stemming from CFI's Reliance on "Statistical" Allegations

While the Third Circuit's majority decision acknowledged that CFI's allegations "must of course be based on a reliable methodology," id. at *30, it failed to ensure that CFI's claims satisfied this standard.  In so doing, it essentially left the "plausibility" determination to be decided at a later stage of the action.  Yet, that day of pleading reckoning likely will never come.  Instead, armed with evidence obtained in discovery, CFI almost certainly will rely on other information in an attempt to prove its claims at trial.  Indeed, the likelihood that any court would admit at trial the "statistical" analysis proffered by CFI at the pleading stage is virtually nil.   

The dissent recognized this problem and, in a methodical fashion, criticized CFI's unscientific eBay methodology as unreliable evidence that did not support the plausible inference of liability required by Rule 8(a), let alone that "surpasses the high bar to allege fraud" required under Rule 9(b).  Id. at *65-66 (Fuentes, J., dissenting).  The dissent made clear that "CFI's investigation into Victaulic's imports is incapable of supporting the kinds of statistical inferences that CFI wants us to draw," id. at *42, and listed a chain of no fewer than nine CFI assumptions, extrapolations, and inferences that did not validly and scientifically support the allegations of fraud, including the following:

  • Step three: Assume that Victaulic products available on eBay constitute a perfectly representative sample of Victaulic products for sale in the United States.
  • Step four: Assume that photographs on eBay are not stock images but rather accurate depictions of the physical items being sold.
  • Step five: Assume that a nonrandom sample of 221 of Victaulic items for sale on eBay is also perfectly representative of Victaulic products sold in the United States. 
  • Step six: While 40 items out of this 221-item sample contain unclear photographs, assume that we can rectify that problem with a nonrandom sample of ten items, examined in person.

Id. at *55-56 (emphasis in original).  The full list goes on, but from this excerpt, it is clear that the statistical evidence did not reliably support the allegations against Victaulic because CFI had failed to follow two basic tenets of statistical sampling: (1) survey the correct population, and (2) use a random sample.

The dissent also demonstrated why the majority's reliance on CFI's "expert" declaration (attached as an exhibit to CFI's proposed amended complaint) was misplaced, describing the declaration's "rhetorical gambit" of merely repeating CFI's conclusions using technical-sounding terms.  Id. at *61.

Key Take-Aways

The Third Circuit's decision to permit CFI to proceed with its FCA claims based on a flawed and untested statistical analysis in the absence of any other evidence of fraud lays the groundwork for future abuse.  The plausibility and particularity pleading standards of Rules 8(a) and 9(b)—and the policy rationales on which they are based—are not so easily satisfied.  It is of little comfort that the Third Circuit recognized and sought to mitigate this danger by suggesting that the district court employ "controlled discovery."

Moreover, even where plaintiffs present an admissible statistical study, FCA allegations should not be allowed to proceed to discovery simply because fraud could have occurred, in a mathematical or scientific sense.  There also must be factual allegations, or a level of proof, that make other plausible explanations unlikely and that allow defendants to be on notice, with particularity, of the allegations against them.  As the dissent pointed out, "a federal lawsuit is not a mechanism to confirm a vague suspicion that fraudulent conduct occurred." Id. at *66 (emphasis in original). 

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of www.mondaq.com

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about Mondaq.com’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to unsubscribe@mondaq.com with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to webmaster@mondaq.com.

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to EditorialAdvisor@mondaq.com.

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at enquiries@mondaq.com.

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at problems@mondaq.com and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.