1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |First Means First: Dismissal of Prior Related Actions No Cure For Relator’s First-to-File Defect

First Means First: Dismissal of Prior Related Actions No Cure For Relator’s First-to-File Defect

Client Alert | 1 min read | 08.15.17

The Fourth Circuit held in United States ex rel. Carter v. Halliburton – its third decision in this protracted litigation – that the False Claims Act’s first-to-file rule required dismissal of the relator’s action, because relator brought his case while related cases were pending even though those related cases had since been dismissed and the relator’s complaint subsequently amended.  The court explained that the statutory text of the first-to-file rule is “unambiguous” and “affords courts no flexibility to accommodate an improperly-filed action when its earlier-filed counterpart ceases to be pending.”  The court acknowledged that its holding “may raise statute of limitations problems” for some FCA relators, but noted that (1) the FCA’s objective of putting the government on notice of fraud was already met by the first-filed actions, and (2) FCA defendants also have an interest “in repose and avoiding stale claims outside the limitations period.”

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....

View All Insights