Defective Pricing & the False Claims Act
Client Alert | 1 min read | 05.21.19
The enactments of the False Claim Act (FCA) and the Truth in Negotiations Act (TINA) were separated by nearly 100 years, yet the two statutes have become kissing cousins, with many defective pricing cases turning into fraud actions. In Defective Pricing & the False Claims Act, published in the April 2019 issue of Thomson Reuters’s Briefing Papers, Crowell & Moring attorneys discuss: (1) the historical factors and practical warning signs linking defective pricing and FCA actions; (2) the burdens and elements of proof in TINA and FCA litigations and how certain elements may overlap and even bolster defenses to both defective pricing and fraud actions; and (3) the procedural elements of TINA and FCA actions—such as stays of proceedings, evidentiary standards, and statutes of limitation—and where these factors may determine the outcomes in both defective pricing and fraud proceedings.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 3 min read | 06.12.26
DOJ Guidance Backs Away From Disparate Impact Liability
On June 9, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a formal opinion concluding that the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission’s (EEOC) existing interpretations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) disparate-impact liability, including the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (UGESP), are unconstitutional. According to the opinion, EEOC’s prior interpretations contemplate liability based on disproportionately adverse effects alone, without regard to an employer’s likely intent, rather than treating disparate impact as an evidentiary mechanism to “smoke out” intentional discrimination. DOJ found that this approach functions as a “qualified racial-proportionality mandate” that places “a racial thumb on the scales, often requiring employers to evaluate the racial outcomes of their policies, and to make decisions based on (because of) those racial outcomes.” The opinion fulfills one mandate of Executive Order 14281, which rejected disparate-impact liability insofar as it “creates a near insurmountable presumption that unlawful discrimination exists wherever there are any differences in outcomes among different [demographic groups].”
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.12.26
Auto Dealers: The FTC Is Back in the Driver’s Seat — Warning Letters Signal Renewed Federal Scrutiny
Client Alert | 13 min read | 06.12.26
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.12.26


