1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Satellite-Sensor FCA Suit Comes Crashing Down to Earth

Satellite-Sensor FCA Suit Comes Crashing Down to Earth

Client Alert | 1 min read | 08.09.17

On August 3, 2017 in United States ex rel. Mateski v. Raytheon Co, a district judge in the Central District of California dismissed a $1 billion False Claims Act (FCA) suit brought by a former Raytheon engineer who alleged that the company overbilled the government and failed to meet product specifications on a contract for satellite sensors. Although Relator had amended his complaint five times, the Fifth Amended Complaint still failed to identify a single specific false representation that Raytheon made to the government. Moreover, the complaint contained only one sentence addressing the materiality of Raytheon’s alleged nonconformity with contract specifications. Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in United States ex rel. Escobar on the implied certification theory of liability, the district court found that relator’s barebones allegations of nonconforming deliveries failed to meet the FCA’s demanding materiality standard and the heightened pleading requirements of 9(b) which were unlikely to be cured by granting further leave to amend.

Insights

Client Alert | 5 min read | 08.21.26

FTC Proposes Enforcement Policy Statement on Personalized Pricing: What Businesses Need to Know

On August 19, 2026, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced a proposed Enforcement Policy Statement on personalized pricing — the practice of companies using consumers’ personal data to set individualized prices, discounts, coupons, or other incentives. The proposed statement, which is open for public comment for 30 days following publication in the Federal Register, marks a major step up in the FTC’s focus on data-driven pricing strategies and puts businesses across industries on notice that undisclosed or inadequately disclosed personalized pricing will not be tolerated. Importantly, while the proposed statement is not a binding legal requirement and does not create new legal obligations, it serves as an enforcement warning that the FTC is prepared to use its existing enforcement authority under Section 5 of the FTC Act (Section 5) and is also a potential harbinger of rulemaking. Businesses that engage in — or are considering — personalized pricing should carefully assess their disclosure practices and data collection procedures against the standards articulated in this statement....