United States: Supreme Court: False Claims Act Can Impose Liability For "Implied False Certifications"

Michael Manthei is a partner in Holland & Knight's Boston office and Timothy J. Taylor is a litigation attorney in the firm's Northern Virginia office.


  • In an 8-0 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the False Claims Act can impose liability under an "implied false certification" theory. According to this theory, when a defendant submits a claim to the federal government, it "impliedly certifies" its compliance with material statutory, regulatory and contractual requirements.
  • The Supreme Court held that a material requirement is not always the same thing as an express condition of payment, saying, "What matters is not the label the Government attaches to a requirement, but whether the defendant knowingly violated a requirement that the defendant knows is material to the Government's payment decision."
  • The Supreme Court described the materiality requirement as "rigorous," but gave only general guidance as to what that means, which will provide fertile ground for litigation in the future.

The U.S. Supreme Court recently issued a unanimous 8-0 decision in Universal Health Services, Inc. v. United States ex rel. Escobar. At issue in the case was the viability and scope of the so-called "implied certification" theory of False Claims Act liability. According to this theory, when a defendant submits a claim to the federal government, it "impliedly certifies" its compliance with material statutory, regulatory and contractual requirements. Those requirements can number in the thousands for those who interact with the government, such as government contractors, healthcare organizations, life sciences companies and institutions of higher learning. The implied-certification theory, if stretched too broadly, could threaten these organizations with False Claims Act liability virtually anytime they fall out of compliance with any law, rule or contract term.

In an opinion written by Justice Clarence Thomas, the Supreme Court endorsed the implied-certification theory – but also limited it. According to the Court, the False Claims Act requires the submission of a false claim, and that can include the submission of a claim where the defendant fails to disclose material information, e.g., information that it knows could potentially change the Government's mind on whether to pay. The Court was quick to stress, however, that not every "insignificant regulatory or contractual violation[]" would suffice. The Court explained that minor infractions, those that would not affect the government's decision to pay a claim, are not material.


The plaintiffs in this case alleged that their daughter had received mental-health treatment from medical professionals who were not properly licensed or supervised under certain state regulations. The plaintiffs brought a federal False Claims Act suit in Massachusetts, under the theory that bills submitted to Medicaid for the medical professionals' work were false because they failed to disclose that noncompliance with state regulations. The district court dismissed the case, reasoning that none of those state regulations were expressly listed as conditions of payment, so violation of them could not be material. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reversed and gave a much broader view of materiality: Any noncompliance is material, wrote the appeals court, if the defendant knows that the government could refuse payment were it aware of the violation.

The First Circuit's broad view of materiality stood in contrast to those of some other circuits, which had either rejected the implied false certification theory altogether or limited its application to those terms expressly listed as conditions of payment. The Supreme Court took up the case to resolve those differences.

The Court's Opinion

The Supreme Court first held that the implied false certification theory can be a proper basis for liability. It noted that in this case, the defendant did more than just request payment. By submitting a bill under the circumstances alleged, it also implicitly represented that it was entitled to payment. And because of that, it had a duty to disclose material information. Referencing concepts of common law fraud, the Court found that the claims fell "squarely within the rule that half-truths – representations that state the truth only so far as it goes, while omitting critical qualifying information – can be actionable misrepresentations."

The Court next held that a claim can be impliedly false even if it does not violate an express condition of payment. The Court gave the example of a contractor that bills for firearms that do not actually shoot. Even if not an express condition of payment, no reasonable contractor would believe that the firearms' inability to shoot was immaterial. The Court also reasoned that the express-condition requirement was a poor solution to limiting False Claims Act liability. The Government could simply make compliance with all laws and regulations an express condition, or it could pick and choose which laws and regulations should be made an express condition, which would be an arbitrary exercise.

The Court concluded that the better way to limit False Claims Act liability was by taking seriously its "rigorous" and "demanding" materiality requirement. According to the Court, a noncompliance with the law may render a claim false, but not materially false, which is what matters. As to what material means, the Court was less clear. It suggested, "[P]roof of materiality can include ... evidence that the defendant knows that the Government consistently refuses to pay claims in the mine run of cases based on noncompliance with the particular statutory, regulatory, or contractual requirement. Conversely, if the Government pays a particular claim in full despite its actual knowledge that certain requirements were violated, that is very strong evidence that those requirements are not material." The Court rejected the First Circuit's broader view, that any noncompliance is material if the government could reject a claim on that basis; instead, there must be some consideration of whether the government does reject claims on that basis.

What the Decision Means

The Universal Health decision rejects the distinction, employed until now by many courts, between provisions that are express conditions of payment and those that are not. Instead, it places the focus squarely on the statute's longstanding materiality requirement. In so doing, the court has further aligned the False Claims Act with common-law definitions of fraud and with the standards applied to other fraud-based statutes.

This new framework is likely a mixed bag for defendants. The decision applies nationwide, so defendants can no longer apply what may have been a more favorable standard in their particular jurisdictions. Although the decision aligns interpretation of the False Claims Act with longstanding and well-understood notions of common-law fraud, it does not further refine the standard for what is "material." The Court repeatedly emphasized that the False Claims Act is not meant to punish "insignificant regulatory or contractual violations," but without further definition, the materiality standard makes it difficult to determine which violations are "insignificant" and which are not. This combination provides fertile ground for litigation. However, it also may allow defendants to draw from a much deeper pool of federal case law that is addressed more broadly to the fundamental concepts of fraud.

In the end, the decision almost certainly will make it more difficult for defendants to dispose of False Claims Act lawsuits at the motion-to-dismiss stage or on summary judgment. The question of whether a noncompliance was an express condition of payment is often a legal question which can be resolved early. The question of whether a noncompliance was material, however, is fact-bound and subject to convenient testimony from government officials.

In the final analysis, Universal Health moves materiality to the center stage. False Claims Act defendants will need to adjust their strategies accordingly. As the court suggested, this might include, among other things, showing that the government paid a defendant's or others' claims despite knowing of the noncompliance at issue. It also opens the door more widely for "expert" battles involving former government officials. Finally, it is worth noting that the relator and the government have the initial burden of proving materiality and it is arguable that a statute's statement that compliance is a condition of payment is not sufficient. Putting the government and relators to the test on the materiality element certainly will feature prominently in any False Claims Act defense.

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.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
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
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

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 or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq 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 of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions