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 | 5 min read | 12.12.25
Eleventh Circuit Hears Argument on False Claims Act Qui Tam Constitutionality
On the morning of December 12, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit heard argument in United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, et al., No. 24-13581 (11th Cir. 2025). This case concerns the constitutionality of the False Claims Act (FCA) qui tam provisions and a groundbreaking September 2024 opinion in which the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida held that the FCA’s qui tam provisions were unconstitutional under Article II. See United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Fla. Med. Assocs., LLC, 751 F. Supp. 3d 1293 (M.D. Fla. 2024). That decision, penned by District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, was the first success story for a legal theory that has been gaining steam ever since Justices Thomas, Barrett, and Kavanaugh indicated they would be willing to consider arguments about the constitutionality of the qui tam provisions in U.S. ex rel. Polansky v. Exec. Health Res., 599 U.S. 419 (2023). In her opinion, Judge Mizelle held (1) qui tam relators are officers of the U.S. who must be appointed under the Appointments Clause; and (2) historical practice treating qui tam and similar relators as less than “officers” for constitutional purposes was not enough to save the qui tam provisions from the fundamental Article II infirmity the court identified. That ruling was appealed and, after full briefing, including by the government and a bevy of amici, the litigants stepped up to the plate this morning for oral argument.
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.11.25
Director Squires Revamps the Workings of the U.S. Patent Office
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.10.25
Creativity You Can Use: CJEU Clarifies Copyright for Applied Art
Client Alert | 4 min read | 12.10.25
Federal Court Strikes Down Interior Order Suspending Wind Energy Development
