United States: U.S. Supreme Court Endorses Implied Certification Theory Of False Claims Act Liability And Clarifies Materiality Standard

On June 16, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Universal Health Services, Inc. v. United States ex rel. Escobar, resolving a long-standing split among the circuits regarding application of an "implied certification" theory of liability under the False Claims Act. As expected, the Court held that the implied certification theory is a valid theory of liability, thus expanding the scope of potential liability in those few courts that had previously rejected the theory. But the Court's opinion also narrowly limited the implied certification theory, perhaps even more than most commentators and observers had anticipated. In a unanimous opinion authored by Justice Thomas, the Court held that "liability can attach when the defendant submits a claim for payment that makes specific representations about the goods or services provided, but knowingly fails to disclose the defendant's noncompliance with a statutory, regulatory, or contractual requirement." Under today's decision, the government can recover under the implied certification theory only if "the defendant knowingly violated a requirement that the defendant knows is material to the Government's payment decision." The Court went on to explain what it described as the "rigorous" materiality requirement and how it should be enforced.

The implied certification theory of liability has been widely criticized among the defense bar for creating too much uncertainty for government contractors and others who present claims for payment to the government. While the Supreme Court adopted the controversial theory, it also went to significant lengths to cabin the theory as a basis for liability. The Court limited the implied certification theory to situations in which the defendant has (1) made specific representations about goods or services provided to the government; and (2) acted with knowledge (which the False Claims Act defines to include both actual knowledge and reckless disregard) that it violated a material statutory, regulatory, or contractual provision, meaning that it likely would have affected the government's willingness to pay the claim had the government known about the violation.

The decision should provide some comfort to government contractors and participants in government programs that violation of any technical statutory, regulatory, or contractual condition of payment will not necessarily lead to False Claims Act liability. The Court's reasoning is also likely to reinforce the importance of materiality as a critical point on which to contest liability in many False Claims Act cases. At the same time, however, by articulating a new standard for implied certification cases in broad strokes, the Court has left to the lower courts the task of working out details in its application.


The False Claims Act ("FCA") penalizes contractors that "knowingly present[], or cause[] to be presented, a false or fraudulent claim for payment or approval" to the government. What it means for a claim to be "false or fraudulent" is a hotly contested question. At the center of the controversy is the "implied certification theory." According to this theory, when contractors make claims for payment to the government, they implicitly certify that they have complied with all regulations, or, under particular versions of the theory, some limited set of regulations. Under the implied certification theory, if the contractor violated these regulations, then the contractor has made a "false or fraudulent" claim because the "implied certification" that it complied with those regulations is not true. If these violations are "knowing," then the contractor has violated the FCA, even if it complied with all the terms of the contract. This subjects contractors to treble damages plus an additional civil penalty for every violation.

Until today, only lower courts had weighed in on whether the FCA supports the implied certification theory, with the Supreme Court remaining silent. The majority of Circuit Courts to address the issue -- the Courts of Appeals for the Second, Third, Sixth, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits -- held that the FCA supports a version of the implied certification theory that limits the set of implied certifications to those on the basis of which the government explicitly conditions payment. In other words, the FCA deems contractors to implicitly certify their compliance only with regulations about which the government says, "This regulation is so important to us that, if you violate it, then we won't pay you." Two Circuit Courts -- the Courts of Appeals for the District of Columbia and Eleventh Circuits -- adopted a more expansive version of the theory, allowing claims for implied certification for violations of express or implied conditions of payment or conditions of participation in a government program. The Seventh Circuit rejected the theory of implied certification entirely.

In the decision the Supreme Court decided to review, the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit also interpreted the FCA to support the implied certification theory. According to the First Circuit, FCA liability exists when the contractor "knowingly misrepresented compliance with a material precondition of payment," where the conditions need not be "expressly designated." In other words, if a contractor knows (which, under the FCA, includes willful ignorance or reckless disregard for the truth) that violating a particular regulation would influence the government's decision to pay or provide a basis for refusing payment, then violating that regulation gives rise to FCA liability, whether or not the government specifies the regulation in advance.

The Escobar Case

The Escobar case itself involved a tragic set of facts. The defendant, Universal Health Services ("UHS"), owned and operated a mental health services provider in Massachusetts and contracted with the state Medicaid program, Massachusetts Health. UHS violated various Massachusetts Health regulations concerning the qualifications and supervision of staff members, and also misrepresented some staff members' qualifications (or lack thereof) to patients. A teenage girl received counseling services at one of UHS's satellite mental health facilities, where a purported doctor prescribed her medication for a bipolar disorder. The patient suffered multiple seizures and eventually died. After the patient's parents learned that only one of the five professionals who treated their daughter was properly licensed, they brought an action under the False Claims Act as qui tam relators.

The district court granted UHS's motion to dismiss, holding that the regulations at issue that UHS violated may have been conditions of participation in the government program, but were not "conditions of payment." The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reversed, stating that each time a billing party submits a claim, it implicitly communicates that it conformed with the relevant program requirements.

Today's Decision

The Supreme Court held that the implied certification theory can provide a basis for liability under the False Claims Act. The Court relied on common law definitions of "false" and "fraudulent" -- relevant terms used in the False Claims Act -- to conclude that "half-truths -- representations that state the truth only so far as it goes, while omitting critical qualifying information -- can be actionable misrepresentation."

But the Court also cabined the implied certification theory. It held that the theory can be a basis for liability where two conditions are satisfied: (1) the claim not only requests payment, but also makes specific representations about the goods or services provided and (2) the failure to disclose noncompliance with material statutory, regulatory, or contractual requirements makes those representations misleading half-truths. The Court stated that the misrepresentation about compliance with a statutory, regulatory, or contractual requirement must be "material to the Government's payment decision" in order to be actionable.

With respect to the first condition -- that the defendant made specific representations about the goods or services provided -- UHS used payment codes that corresponded to services rendered by specific categories of professionals. The Court thus did not have occasion to provide much guidance as to the nature or specificity of representations that would satisfy the standard. The Court likewise did not address to what extent a nexus must exist between the specific representations made about the goods or services and the noncompliance with statutory, regulatory, or contractual requirements that forms the basis for liability under the implied certification theory.

With respect to the second condition, the Court described the materiality standard as "rigorous" and "demanding." It explained that the government does not need to expressly designate the contractual, statutory, or regulatory provision as a condition of payment in order for the violation to be material, but also that even when the government does expressly designate the requirement as a condition of payment, that is not alone determinative. The Court further explained that a misrepresentation is not material merely because the government would have the option to decline to pay if it knew of the noncompliance with the statutory, regulatory, or contractual provision. Rather, what matters is "whether the defendant knowingly violated a requirement that the defendant knows is material to the Government's payment decision." In other words, in order to prevail, the government or qui tam relator must show not only that the defendant knowingly failed to disclose a violation of a statutory, regulatory, or contractual requirement, but also that the defendant knew (i.e. had actual or constructive knowledge) that disclosure of the violation would have been likely to affect the government's willingness to pay the claim.

Although the Court did not expressly address the so-called "government knowledge defense" – the oft-asserted argument that the government's awareness of the falsity of a claim negates scienter or materiality -- the Court did explain that the government's knowledge of a violation may be highly probative of materiality. The Court observed that the government's payment of a claim despite its knowledge that the contractor violated requirements would constitute "very strong evidence" that the requirements were not material. Similarly, the Court explained that the government's regular payment of a type of claim despite its knowledge that requirements were violated, absent a signal of a change in position, would be "strong evidence" that the requirements were not material.


The Supreme Court's adoption of the implied certification theory will obviously lead to expanded liability for contractors in those courts that had previously rejected the theory. But the Court did go to significant lengths to cabin the theory through its extensive discussion of the materiality requirement. It may prove difficult for the government or qui tam relators to show that a defendant not only violated a statutory, regulatory, or contractual requirement, but also that the defendant knew that the violation would have affected the government's willingness to pay had it known of the violations.

But for companies that regularly do business with the government or participate in government funded programs, the Escobar decision will leave in place significant risk of future litigation. Indeed, the consequences of such False Claims Act litigation will increase in the near future as the False Claims Act penalties are adjusted significantly for many years of inflation under a recently enacted law. The qui tam relators' bar will likely be undeterred by the Supreme Court's efforts to cabin the implied certification theory, and exactly how lower courts will apply the standards articulated by the Court remains to be seen. Government contractors and participants in government programs thus would be well advised to make legal compliance a priority and make every effort to encourage would-be whistleblowers to report violations internally so that they can be addressed before litigation arises.

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