Reining in Lincoln’s Law: A Call to Limit the Implied Certification Theory of Liability Under the False Claims Act

Reining in Lincoln’s Law: A Call to Limit the Implied Certification Theory of Liability Under the False Claims Act

The False Claims Act is widely considered the nation’s preeminent civil litigation weapon against fraud by federal contractors. Under the Act’s newest theory of liability known as implied certification, a contractor is liable for civil penalties and treble damages if it knowingly presents a claim for payment to the government and fails to disclose its violation of a contract provision, statute, or regulation material to the government’s decision to pay the claim. While a majority of federal courts of appeals have embraced the implied certification theory, they have struggled to define the scope of a contractor’s duty to disclose in the absence of an agreement between the contracting parties. Under the default rule developed by the Second Circuit in Mikes v. Straus, liability attaches only when a contractor submits a claim and fails to disclose its violation of a material contractual, statutory, or regulatory provision that the government has expressly identified as a condition of payment. A broader default rule, enunciated by the First Circuit in United States ex rel. Hutcheson v. Blackstone Medical, Inc., imposes liability when a contractor submits a claim and fails to disclose its violation of a material contractual, statutory, or regulatory provision, regardless of whether the provision was an express condition of payment.

Because the choice between these two default rules can be outcome determinative in cases with hundreds of millions of dollars at stake, there is an urgent need to resolve the split of authority and ensure uniformity across the federal courts. This Comment argues that the U.S. Supreme Court should resolve the circuit split by recognizing the implied certification theory and adopting the express condition-of-payment requirement set forth by the Second Circuit in Mikes. The Court should recognize the implied certification theory because the language and structure of the False Claims Act support liability for at least some undisclosed contractual, statutory, and regulatory violations; Congress has emphasized that the Act broadly targets fraud against the government; and the theory comports with the common-law recognition of fraud by omission. At the same time, neither the statutory language nor legislative history authorizes the use of the implied certification theory to police garden-variety contractual breaches or statutory or regulatory violations. Accordingly, the Court should adopt theMikes express condition-of-payment requirement, which confines liability to cases of clear fraud. In addition to enforcing the proper limits of implied certification liability, theMikes rule has two distinct advantages over the Blackstonealternative: it provides federal contractors with fair notice of punitive antifraud liability, and it reduces their compliance and litigation costs.



More in this Issue

The Ambition and Transformative Potential of Progressive Property

The emerging progressive property school celebrates and finds its meaning in the social nature of property. Rejecting the idea that exclusion lies at the core of property law, progressive property scholars call for a reconsideration of the relationships owners and nonowners have with property and with each other. Despite these ambitions, progressive property scholarship has […]

Pirates vs. Private Security: Commercial Shipping, the Montreux Document, and the Battle for the Gulf of Aden

The scourge of Somali piracy has imperiled the free movement of commercial shipping vessels in the Gulf of Aden, a major conduit of global commerce. A “grand armada” of international naval forces sent to safeguard commercial vessels near Somalia has been unable to stem the growth of Somali pirate syndicates capable of brazen attacks and […]

The Borat Problem in Negotiation: Fraud, Assent, and the Behavioral Law and Economics of Standard Form Contracts

Two parties reach an oral agreement. The first then presents a standard form contract, which the second signs without reading, or without reading carefully. When the second party later objects that the first did not perform according to the oral representations, the first party points out that the signed document includes different terms or disclaims […]

The Case for Online Obscurity

On the Internet, obscure information has a minimal risk of being discovered or understood by unintended recipients. Empirical research demonstrates that Internet users rely on obscurity perhaps more than anything else to protect their privacy. Yet, online obscurity has been largely ignored by courts and lawmakers. In this Article, we argue that obscurity is a […]