1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Materiality Rules: Escobar Changes the Game

Materiality Rules: Escobar Changes the Game

Client Alert | 1 min read | 05.15.17

On May 1, 2017, the Third Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of a relator’s claims in United States ex rel. Petratos, et al. v. Genentech Inc. in a False Claims Act (FCA) case in which the relator alleged that pharmaceutical manufacturer Genentech had suppressed data about a cancer drug’s side effects. Applying the materiality analysis from the Supreme Court’s decision in Universal Health Servs., Inc. v. United States ex rel. Escobar, the Third Circuit “join[ed] the many other federal courts that have recognized the heightened materiality standard after [Escobar]” and found that the relator failed to allege that Genentech made misrepresentations that were material to government’s decision to pay claims. The Third Circuit’s decision in Petratos is just one of the nearly 100 court opinions that have cited Escobar in the eleven months since the Court’s landmark ruling on the on the implied-certification theory of liability. In a “Feature Comment” published in The Government Contractor, C&M attorneys analyze some of the key cases and explore the developing trends in the wake of Escobar.

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....

View All Insights