False Claims Act / Qui Tam Defenses

False Claims Act defenses are built element by element, because 31 U.S.C. § 3729 is written as a set of elements rather than as a general prohibition on dishonesty. A relator or the United States must show a claim, falsity, knowledge as the statute defines it, and materiality, and a failure on any one of those defeats liability regardless of how the conduct reads in a complaint. That structure is what makes these cases defensible even when the underlying billing looks messy.

The other half of the work is procedural. Several rules keep cases out of court entirely, and they operate before anyone reaches the merits. Raising them early is usually cheaper than winning them late. To discuss defenses available in a False Claims Act or qui tam matter, call (888) 437-7747 to request a consultation.

On this page

Falsity: Was the Claim Actually False

A claim is not false because a regulator would have preferred different conduct. The starting question is what the contract, the program rules, or the payment instructions actually required at the time of submission, and whether the submission departed from that requirement.

Where liability rests on an implied certification of compliance, the defense examines whether the claim made any specific representation at all and whether the requirement said to be violated was a condition of payment or merely a condition of participation. Where the dispute is about a professional judgment, such as medical necessity or the reasonableness of a cost allocation, a difference of opinion among qualified professionals is not the same as a falsehood, and the record has to be developed to show that the judgment was actually made and documented.

Knowledge: What the Statute Requires and What It Does Not

The Act reaches actual knowledge, deliberate ignorance, and reckless disregard, and requires no specific intent to defraud. A defense that consists only of denying a plan to cheat is therefore incomplete.

The stronger version shows how the question was addressed. Written guidance from the paying agency, a contemporaneous legal opinion, an audit that examined the practice, a compliance process that escalated the issue, or an industry standard followed openly all tend to negate recklessness. Where the requirement was genuinely ambiguous, the defense is that an interpretation was objectively reasonable and no authoritative guidance warned the defendant away from it. Timing is decisive here. Guidance obtained after the demand arrives proves far less than a record built before anyone was looking.

Materiality, Causation, and Damages

Materiality asks whether the alleged violation had a natural tendency to influence payment. Evidence that the agency continued paying similar claims with full knowledge of the practice is powerful, and so is evidence that the requirement was routinely waived or treated as minor in administrative practice. Labelling a requirement as a condition of payment in a contract does not settle the question.

Causation and damages get less attention than they deserve. If the United States received the goods or services it paid for, the measure of damages may be far smaller than the amount invoiced, and in some configurations there is no loss at all. Where a claim count drives the exposure, the defense examines whether the government has actually identified false claims or has extrapolated from a sample, and whether that method is sound.

Threshold Bars That End Cases Early

The public disclosure bar removes jurisdiction over allegations already disclosed through specified public channels unless the relator qualifies as an original source with independent knowledge that materially adds to what was public. The first-to-file rule bars a later relator from bringing a related action while an earlier one is pending. Complaints alleging fraud must also be pleaded with particularity, which in these cases usually means identifying representative claims rather than describing a scheme in general terms.

Beyond those, the government may move to dismiss an action it has declined, and courts have recognized that authority. Limitations questions turn on statutory provisions with their own tolling rules, so confirm the applicable period and any tolling or exception against the current statutory text with counsel rather than assuming a standard period applies.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is a billing error enough to create liability?

Not on its own. The Act requires knowledge as it defines that term, so an isolated coding mistake, a data entry error, or a system fault corrected on discovery is ordinarily outside the statute. What converts errors into exposure is a pattern that persisted after warnings, an internal audit whose findings were not acted on, or a practice that continued because nobody wanted the answer. The defense is usually built from the records showing how the error was found and what was done next.

Does it help that the agency kept paying?

It can help a great deal on materiality. Continued payment with actual knowledge of the practice tends to show that the alleged violation did not have a natural tendency to influence the payment decision. The strength of the point depends on what the agency actually knew, at what level, and whether the knowledge is documented. General awareness within an industry is much weaker than a specific communication to the paying agency that was answered or ignored.

What is the public disclosure bar?

It is a threshold rule that prevents a relator from bringing claims that are substantially the same as allegations already disclosed through certain public channels, such as federal hearings, government reports and audits, or the news media. A relator can overcome it by qualifying as an original source, meaning the person has knowledge that is independent of and materially adds to the public information. Because it is jurisdictional in effect, it is usually raised at the earliest opportunity.

Can a company rely on advice it received?

Sometimes, but not casually. Reliance on counsel or on written agency guidance can negate the knowledge element where the advice was sought in good faith, all material facts were disclosed, and the advice was actually followed. Raising it may also waive privilege over the surrounding communications, which can expose material the company would rather keep protected. The decision is strategic and belongs at the front of the case, not at trial.

Do defenses differ when the government intervenes?

The elements are the same, but the case changes. An intervening government pleading is usually narrower and better supported than a relator complaint, and the resources on the other side increase. Threshold bars aimed at the relator may matter less once the United States is litigating in its own name. On the other hand, intervention concentrates the dispute on the strongest theory, which lets the defense focus its own effort instead of answering everything at once.

When should defenses be raised?

Earlier than most people expect. Jurisdictional bars, pleading defects, and limitations questions are motion practice, and winning them avoids the discovery that makes these cases expensive. Merits defenses on knowledge and materiality are usually developed through documents and depositions, but the material that supports them, such as contemporaneous guidance and audit records, has to be preserved and organized from the first week of an investigation.

How Mr. Sris and the Firm’s Of Counsel Attorneys Handle False Claims Act Defenses

Defense work in these matters starts with the elements and with the calendar. The elements decide what evidence matters, and the calendar decides which arguments are still available, because threshold bars raised late are worth far less than the same arguments raised at the pleading stage.

Mr. Sris, Owner and Founder of Law Offices Of SRIS, P.C., is a former prosecutor and founded the firm in 1997. He is admitted in Virginia, Maryland, the District of Columbia, New Jersey, and New York. His background at George Mason University in accounting and information systems is applied to complex financial and technology-related cases, which is the category these matters fall into. Mr. Sris and the firm’s Of Counsel attorneys, who contract directly with the firm, work on federal criminal matters together.

The firm represents contractors, health care organizations, grant recipients, executives, and employees in False Claims Act and qui tam matters, including sealed cases, declined cases litigated by relators, and matters with a parallel criminal investigation. To discuss a False Claims Act matter, call (888) 437-7747 to request a consultation.

Disclaimers

This page describes defenses raised in matters brought under the False Claims Act at 31 U.S.C. § 3729 in general terms for people trying to understand a federal process. It is not legal advice, and reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship with Law Offices Of SRIS, P.C. Federal statutes and the decisions interpreting them change over time, so confirm anything stated here against the current statutory text with counsel before acting on it.

Every federal matter turns on facts that belong to that matter alone. Case results depend on a variety of factors unique to each case. Results may vary.

Attorney responsible for this advertising: Mr. Sris. Law Offices Of SRIS, P.C. Call (888) 437-7747 to request a consultation; the firm’s intake line is staffed 24/7.

Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

These defences apply to one offence. Our page on false claims act qui tam charges sets out that offence from start to finish.