1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Is Grocery Chain's FCA Win in the Bag?

Is Grocery Chain's FCA Win in the Bag?

Client Alert | 1 min read | 04.20.18

On March 22, 2018, an Indiana state trial court dismissed a qui tam action alleging that a large grocery chain knowingly failed to collect and remit state sales tax on hundreds of goods.  State of Indiana ex. rel Harmeyer v. The Kroger Co. et al. Under Indiana law, the state’s gross retail tax does not apply to “food and food ingredients,” but it does apply to candy, soft drinks, dietary supplements, and prepared foods.  Relator claimed 1,400 food items were mischaracterized as tax-exempt, for example, claiming protein bars are taxable candy rather than nontaxable food.

The judge held that the complaint failed to identify any particular false statement, noting also that the relator, whose similar case against a grocer in another state had been dismissed, was not an employee of the grocery chain, had no inside knowledge of what took place within the company, and merely presumed that the defendant’s characterization of the items as tax-exempt was false and done recklessly.  The court could not determine whether the 1,400 items constituted a substantial percentage of the products sold by defendant, and therefore, even if they were mischaracterized, the court could not presume recklessness from that number.  Last week, relator filed his appeal.

The dismissal is a blow to serial qui tam relators who, with no inside information, bring claims against companies based solely on a presumption that they must be non-compliant with an industry regulation.  The case also reflects an uptick in FCA litigation involving underpayment state taxes (previous post here). While the federal FCA bars tax-related actions (31 USC § 3729(d)), companies must still consider potential exposure in the jurisdictions that permit FCA suits arising from state tax matters.

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....