FCA Defendant Wins Attorneys’ Fees and the Government Gets Stuck with the Bill
Client Alert | 1 min read | 08.23.17
In United States ex rel. Wall v. Circle C Constr., LLC (Aug. 18, 2017), the Sixth Circuit held that the defendant in a False Claims Act case brought by the government was entitled to recover nearly a half-million dollars in attorneys’ fees under § 2412(d)(1)(D) of the Equal Access to Justice Act. The panel majority found that the government’s original demand for damages ($1.66 M) was substantially in excess of the judgment finally obtained ($14,748) thus entitling the defendant, Circle C Construction, to the fees and other expenses related to defending against the government’s excessive demand in a case based on Davis-Bacon Act violations of one of Circle C’s subcontractors. Section 2412(d)(1)(D) of the Equal Access to Justice Act provides that in certain cases, defendants whose net worth falls below specified thresholds may recover costs associated with defending against an “excessive demand” by the government.
Finding the government’s original demand unreasonable because it was not substantially justified, the Sixth Circuit cited its 2016 decision (previously reported here), in which it rejected the government’s damages calculation and observed that the damages sought by the government were “fairyland” rather than actual.
Contacts
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.
Client Alert | 7 min read | 08.19.26
CMS’s Final Rule Bans Federal Medicaid Funding for Youth Gender-Affirming Care
Client Alert | 2 min read | 08.19.26


