If you have inside knowledge of fraud against a government program, the False Claims Act lets you sue on the government's behalf, share in the recovery, and be protected from retaliation. How those cases work, and what to do first, is below.
The False Claims Act is the federal government's primary tool against fraud on public funds, and its most distinctive feature is that it deputizes private citizens to enforce it. A person with knowledge of fraud, called a "relator," files a lawsuit on behalf of the United States. That mechanism is the qui tam action, short for a Latin phrase meaning one who sues for the king as well as for himself.
The structure is unusual and the procedure is strict. The case is filed under seal, kept secret from the defendant while the government investigates, and the relator must navigate a series of rules, the first-to-file bar, the public-disclosure bar, and the seal itself, that can defeat a meritorious claim if they are mishandled. When a case succeeds, the False Claims Act awards treble damages plus per-claim penalties, and the relator receives a share of the recovery. Because the stakes and the procedural traps are both large, these cases reward early, careful, confidential handling.
The False Claims Act reaches any false or fraudulent claim for federal money or any scheme to avoid paying money owed to the government. In practice, most cases cluster in a handful of areas:
The common thread is a knowing falsehood that causes the government to pay money it should not have, or that lets a party keep money it owes. If you have seen that from the inside, you may have a case.
The False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. Sections 3729 through 3733, combines a liability standard, a private enforcement mechanism, a set of gatekeeping rules, and an anti-retaliation provision. Each piece has its own body of law, and a successful case depends on all of them.
Section 3729(a) imposes liability on anyone who knowingly presents, or causes to be presented, a false or fraudulent claim for payment or approval, or who knowingly makes or uses a false record or statement material to a false claim. "Knowingly" is defined in Section 3729(b)(1) to mean actual knowledge, deliberate ignorance, or reckless disregard of the truth; no specific intent to defraud is required. Damages are trebled, and each false claim carries a civil penalty that is adjusted annually for inflation (for 2026, ranging from $14,308 to $28,618 per claim). The Supreme Court sharpened the scienter standard in United States ex rel. Schutte v. SuperValu Inc., 598 U.S. 739 (2023), holding that what matters is the defendant's subjective belief at the time of the claim. A defendant who actually believed its claims were false cannot escape liability merely because it could, after the fact, identify an objectively reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous requirement. Materiality, in turn, is governed by Universal Health Services, Inc. v. United States ex rel. Escobar, 579 U.S. 176 (2016), which adopted a "demanding" and holistic materiality test and recognized the implied-false-certification theory.
Section 3730(b) authorizes a private relator to bring a civil action "for the person and for the United States Government." The complaint is filed in camera and remains under seal for at least 60 days, during which it is not served on the defendant; the relator must serve the government with a copy of the complaint and a written disclosure of substantially all material evidence (Section 3730(b)(2)). The government investigates under seal and decides whether to intervene; the 60-day period is routinely extended for good cause, and these cases often remain sealed for a year or more. If the government intervenes, it assumes primary responsibility for prosecuting the action (Section 3730(c)(1)); if it declines, the relator has the right to conduct the action (Section 3730(c)(3)). The mechanics of the seal are addressed in detail in our guide on filing a qui tam case.
Section 3730(d) sets the relator's recovery. Where the government intervenes, the relator receives 15 to 25 percent of the proceeds, depending on the contribution to the prosecution. Where the government declines and the relator litigates the case to a recovery, the share rises to 25 to 30 percent. The share can be reduced where the action is based primarily on publicly disclosed information, and reduced to no more than 10 percent where the court finds the relator planned and initiated the violation; a relator convicted of criminal conduct arising from the violation is dismissed and recovers nothing. Prevailing relators are also entitled to reasonable attorney's fees and costs from the defendant. The full economics are explained in how a qui tam case works.
Two rules routinely decide whether a case can proceed. The first-to-file bar, Section 3730(b)(5), provides that once a qui tam action is pending, "no person other than the Government may intervene or bring a related action based on the facts underlying the pending action." Only the first relator to file a given set of facts may pursue it, which puts a premium on filing promptly. The public-disclosure bar, Section 3730(e)(4), requires a court to dismiss a claim that is substantially the same as allegations or transactions already publicly disclosed (in federal hearings, government reports, audits, investigations, or the news media) unless the relator is an "original source," meaning someone with independent knowledge that materially adds to the public information who voluntarily disclosed it to the government before filing. Together these rules reward insiders who come forward early and privately, and they penalize delay and public airing of the allegations before filing.
Even after declining to intervene, the government retains substantial control over a qui tam case. Section 3730(c)(2)(A) authorizes the government to move to dismiss a qui tam action over the relator's objection. In United States ex rel. Polansky v. Executive Health Resources, Inc., 599 U.S. 419 (2023), the Supreme Court held that the government may seek dismissal whenever it has intervened, including after initially declining and later intervening, and that such motions are evaluated under the ordinary standard of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a), which district courts will grant in the vast run of cases. The practical lesson is that the government's view of a case matters throughout its life, not only at the initial intervention decision, which is one more reason to build a case the government will want to support.
Section 3730(h) protects whistleblowers independently of whether a qui tam case is ever filed or succeeds. It makes it unlawful to discharge, demote, suspend, threaten, harass, or otherwise discriminate against an employee, contractor, or agent because of lawful acts done in furtherance of a False Claims Act action or "other efforts to stop 1 or more violations" of the Act. Protected activity is read broadly and can include internal complaints about fraud, not only the filing of a lawsuit. The remedies are robust: reinstatement with the same seniority, two times the amount of back pay with interest, and compensation for special damages including litigation costs and reasonable attorney's fees. A retaliation claim under Section 3730(h) must be brought within three years (Section 3730(h)(3)). These claims are covered in False Claims Act retaliation, and they complement the broader Ohio and federal protections discussed on our whistleblower and retaliation page.
The qui tam mechanism is the subject of an active constitutional dispute. In 2024, a federal district court in Florida held in United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC that the False Claims Act's qui tam provisions violate Article II of the Constitution because a relator exercises executive power without proper appointment. That decision is an outlier, and it is on appeal to the Eleventh Circuit (argued December 2025, with a decision pending as of mid-2026); related arguments are being raised in other circuits. For now, the qui tam provisions remain valid and enforced, and the government continues to pursue and settle these cases, but the issue bears watching and is one we monitor for our clients.
False Claims Act enforcement is not a backwater. In fiscal year 2024 the Justice Department reported more than $2.9 billion in False Claims Act settlements and judgments, and whistleblowers filed a record number of new qui tam actions, close to a thousand. Insiders are the reason most fraud is ever discovered, and the statute is deliberately structured to make coming forward worthwhile and to punish retaliation against those who do.
Qui tam matters begin with a confidential evaluation of what you know and how you came to know it. False Claims Act cases are typically handled on a contingency basis, so there is no fee unless there is a recovery, and the statute provides for the defendant to pay a prevailing relator's attorney's fees. Anti-retaliation claims under Section 3730(h) can be pursued alongside a qui tam case or on their own. Because of the seal and the first-to-file rule, the initial conversation should happen before the information is shared more widely.
A qui tam case is a lawsuit brought by a private person, called a relator, on behalf of the United States under the False Claims Act, to recover money the government was defrauded of. The relator files the complaint under seal, the government investigates and decides whether to take over the case, and if the case recovers money the relator receives a share of the recovery.
Under 31 U.S.C. 3730(d), a relator generally receives 15 to 25 percent of the recovery if the government intervenes and takes over the case, and 25 to 30 percent if the government declines and the relator pursues it. The False Claims Act provides for treble (triple) damages plus per-claim penalties, so the total recovery, and the relator's share, can be substantial.
Largely, yes. The False Claims Act has a first-to-file rule that bars a later relator from bringing a related action while a first one is pending, and a public-disclosure bar that can defeat a claim based on fraud already disclosed publicly unless the relator is an original source. Filing promptly and confidentially is important, which is why these cases should not be delayed or discussed publicly.
Retaliation is unlawful. Section 3730(h) of the False Claims Act protects employees, contractors, and agents from being discharged, demoted, harassed, or otherwise discriminated against for lawful efforts to stop a violation or to advance a False Claims Act case. Remedies include reinstatement, two times back pay with interest, and special damages including litigation costs and attorney's fees.
At the start, yes. The complaint is filed under seal and is not served on the defendant while the government investigates, which keeps the relator's identity confidential during that period. The seal is eventually lifted, so anonymity is not permanent, but the initial confidentiality gives time to prepare and is one reason these matters must be handled carefully from the outset.
Discuss what you know with attorney Sean H. Sobel. The conversation is confidential, and there is no cost to talk.
Schedule a Consultation ›