An Opening Salvo for Cybersecurity FCA Cases
Client Alert | 1 min read | 08.06.19
On July 31, 2019, Cisco Systems agreed to pay $8.6 million to settle allegations in United States ex rel Glenn, et al v. Cisco Systems, Inc. that the company violated the False Claims Act (FCA) by selling video surveillance systems to state and federal agencies that contained software flaws enabling those agencies to be hacked. An employee of one of Cisco’s resellers filed the suit in 2011 after discovering the alleged security weakness that could permit a cyber intruder to obtain administrative access to the software that managed video feeds.
The cybersecurity specialist alleged in his complaint that the company violated the FCA by (1) failing to inform government agencies that the software did not comply with the standards imposed by the Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA) and (2) by providing a product that was worthless due to the security flaws in the software. Although this settlement marks the first time that a cybersecurity related qui tam has ended in a recovery through a settlement or judgment, it appears to be a sign of the times. As more such cases—alleging noncompliance with the DFARS Safeguarding Rule or FedRAMP requirements— are investigated and proceed through the courts, Glenn could be the first of many such recoveries.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 4 min read | 12.04.25
District Court Grants Preliminary Injunction Against Seller of Gray Market Snack Food Products
On November 12, 2025, Judge King in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington granted in part Haldiram India Ltd.’s (“Plaintiff” or “Haldiram”) motion for a preliminary injunction against Punjab Trading, Inc. (“Defendant” or “Punjab Trading”), a seller alleged to be importing and distributing gray market snack food products not authorized for sale in the United States. The court found that Haldiram was likely to succeed on the merits of its trademark infringement claim because the products at issue, which were intended for sale in India, were materially different from the versions intended for sale in the U.S., and for this reason were not genuine products when sold in the U.S. Although the court narrowed certain overbroad provisions in the requested order, it ultimately enjoined Punjab Trading from importing, selling, or assisting others in selling the non-genuine Haldiram products in the U.S. market.
Client Alert | 21 min read | 12.04.25
Highlights: CMS’s Proposed Rule for Medicare Part C & D (CY 2027 NPRM)
Client Alert | 11 min read | 12.01.25
