31 U.S.C. §§ 3729–3733
False Claims Act: suing on behalf of the government, under seal, for a share of the recovery
A federal claim in United States district courts · Last verified August 26, 2026
The False Claims Act does something no other claim on this site does: it lets a private person sue in the government's name, for the government's money, and keep a substantial slice of what comes back.
The mechanics are unlike anything else. You file under seal — the defendant does not know for months, sometimes years. The government investigates, then decides whether to take over. If it declines, you can press on alone, and your share goes up.
What the claim is
Someone defrauded the federal government by submitting, or causing someone else to submit, a false claim for payment.
The bulk of it is healthcare — billing Medicare for services never rendered, upcoding, kickbacks tainting otherwise valid claims. The rest is defense procurement, grant fraud, customs duty evasion, and pandemic relief programmes.
There is also a reverse false claim: knowingly concealing or improperly avoiding an obligation to pay money to the government, rather than fraudulently taking money from it.
Where the right comes from
Express, and unusual. The liability provision reaches anyone who "knowingly presents, or causes to be presented, a false or fraudulent claim for payment or approval." The private action provision says a person "may bring a civil action for a violation of section 3729 for the person and for the United States Government."
That last phrase carries the whole structure. The relator's standing rests on being a partial assignee of the government's own claim — the United States is the real party in interest, which is why the government can intervene, and why it can dismiss the case over the relator's objection.
What a plaintiff has to prove
Four elements: a false or fraudulent claim, scienter, materiality, and that it caused the government to pay.
Materiality is demanding. Under Universal Health Services v. Escobar it is a holistic inquiry — would the government have refused payment had it known? Evidence that the government kept paying after learning of the violation cuts hard against materiality. Escobar also endorsed the implied false certification theory, which is how most regulatory-violation cases are framed.
Scienter is now subjective, and this changed the landscape. In United States ex rel. Schutte v. SuperValu Inc. (2023) the Court held the statute's "knowingly" element refers to "a defendant's knowledge and subjective beliefs — not to what an objectively reasonable person may have known or believed." A defendant who believed its claims were false cannot escape by pointing to an after-the-fact reasonable reading of an ambiguous rule.
Pleading is a live circuit split, and it decides cases. Fraud claims must be pleaded with particularity, and circuits divide on what that requires:
- Representative-claim circuits require the complaint to identify at least one actual false claim submitted — dates, amounts, invoices. The Fourth, Sixth, Eighth, and Eleventh Circuits.
- Reliable-indicia circuits accept details of a fraudulent scheme plus reliable indicia supporting a strong inference that claims were submitted. The First, Third, Fifth, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits.
The Supreme Court declined to resolve it. The practical consequence is severe: an insider who knows the scheme but never saw a billing record can plead a case in one circuit and not the other.
How long you have to file
A three-part structure, and the later of the first two governs:
- Six years after the violation, or
- Three years after the responsible United States official knew or should have known the material facts,
- capped by a ten-year outer limit from the violation.
In Cochise Consultancy v. United States ex rel. Hunt (2019) the Court held unanimously that the three-year period is available to a relator even where the government declines to intervene — and that the relator is not the "official of the United States" whose knowledge starts that clock. A private relator is not charged with responsibility to act. That can add years.
What has to happen before you file
More than any other claim on this site, and each step behaves differently.
File under seal for 60 days, extendable, and serve the government with the complaint plus a written disclosure of substantially all material evidence. Character: a mandatory claim-processing rule, not jurisdictional. In State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. United States ex rel. Rigsby the Court held a seal violation does not require automatic dismissal — sanctions are for the district court's discretion.
The first-to-file bar stops a later relator while a related action is pending. Kellogg Brown & Root Services v. United States ex rel. Carter held it applies only while the first suit is still pending — a dismissed first case does not permanently block a second. Older cases called this jurisdictional; the trend treats it as claim-processing.
The public-disclosure bar blocks claims based on already-public allegations unless the relator is an original source. Its character changed by statute. Congress deleted the "No court shall have jurisdiction" language in 2010, so for post-2010 conduct it is a non-jurisdictional ground for dismissal the defendant must raise. Pre-2010 conduct is still governed by the jurisdictional version.
The government's intervention decision is not your prerequisite, but it is the gate everything runs through. It may intervene, decline, or — under United States ex rel. Polansky v. Executive Health Resources (2023) — move to dismiss the case over the relator's objection.
Who can be sued — and who cannot
Any person or entity that submitted or caused a false claim. Individuals and corporations alike.
Tax claims are excluded outright. So, in substance, are claims against senior officials where the government already had the information.
The relator must be a real person or entity with the standing the statute assigns — the partial assignment of the government's claim.
Common defenses
No materiality under Escobar — the strongest defense, especially where the government kept paying.
No subjective knowledge of falsity — narrowed but not eliminated by Schutte.
Government knowledge of the practice, which bears on both scienter and materiality.
Public disclosure, unless the relator is an original source.
Failure to plead with particularity, which depends on the circuit.
What the claim pays
Treble the government's damages, plus a civil penalty per claim — and the penalty is per claim, not per case, so a billing scheme with thousands of invoices produces staggering arithmetic. The penalty range is inflation-adjusted annually; as adjusted effective July 3, 2025 it runs from $14,308 to $28,619 per claim. Check the current figure before relying on it.
The relator's share:
| Situation | Share |
|---|---|
| Government intervenes | 15–25% |
| Government declines and the relator proceeds alone | 25–30% |
| Action based primarily on public disclosures | up to 10% |
Prevailing relators also recover expenses, attorney's fees, and costs from the defendant. Jury trial available.
What people get wrong
"An objectively reasonable reading of an ambiguous rule defeats scienter." False after Schutte.
"If the government declines, the case is over." No — the relator may proceed alone and earns the higher 25–30% share.
"The public-disclosure bar is jurisdictional." No longer, for post-2010 conduct.
"I can tell people I filed." No. The complaint is under seal, and violating it risks sanctions.
"Any regulatory violation is a false claim." No. Materiality under Escobar is a real filter.
"I can file second on the same facts." The first-to-file bar blocks you while the first case is pending.
Where it came from
The statute dates to 1863, passed to combat contractors defrauding the Union Army — which is why it is sometimes called the Lincoln Law.
Congress has overridden the Supreme Court here repeatedly, and each override changed the operative rule. The 1986 amendments revived qui tam and raised damages to treble in response to restrictive case law. The 2009 amendments overrode Allison Engine Co. v. United States ex rel. Sanders by redefining "claim" and "knowingly," eliminating a requirement that the defendant have intended to defraud the government specifically. The 2010 amendments narrowed the public-disclosure bar and broadened the original-source exception, overriding a further line of decisions.
The live existential question is whether qui tam is constitutional at all. In 2024 a federal district judge in Florida held the qui tam provisions violate Article II's Appointments Clause, reasoning that relators exercise significant executive authority while holding an office nobody appointed them to. The Eleventh Circuit heard argument in December 2025. The theory traces to a dissent in Polansky, and three Justices have signalled interest. If it prevails, the entire relator model is in doubt — the single biggest open question on this page.
Common questions
Can I sue on behalf of the government and keep part of the recovery?
Yes. A relator who brings a successful False Claims Act case recovers 15–25% if the government intervenes, and 25–30% if it declines and you proceed alone, plus fees and costs.
Do I have to file secretly?
Yes. The complaint is filed under seal for at least 60 days while the government investigates, and you serve it on the government rather than the defendant. Breaking the seal risks sanctions but does not automatically kill the case.
What is the deadline for a False Claims Act case?
The later of six years after the violation or three years after the responsible government official knew the material facts — never more than ten years after the violation.
Does it help my defense that I read an ambiguous regulation reasonably?
Not by itself, since 2023. Under Schutte, what matters is what the defendant knew and believed at the time, not whether some reasonable person could have read the rule differently.
What happens if the government decides not to join my case?
You may continue on your own, and your share of any recovery increases to between 25 and 30 percent. The government can still intervene later for good cause, and can move to dismiss.