1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Fourth Circuit Interprets Corporate Knowledge And Materiality Under FCA

Fourth Circuit Interprets Corporate Knowledge And Materiality Under FCA

Client Alert | 1 min read | 01.08.04

In United States ex rel. Harrison v. Westinghouse Savannah River Co. (Dec. 19, 2003), the Fourth Circuit upheld a civil penalty of $195,000 ($7500 times 26 invoices) because the false cert "negatively affected the integrity of the bidding process," although zero actual damages were proven. The court held that (a) the False Claims Act's "knowledge" element was satisfied when one employee of the corporate defendant had knowledge of the facts making the corporation's certification false, even though there was no evidence that the same employee knew that the cert was required or even that it had been submitted; and (b) the false cert (that no organizational conflict of interest (OCI) existed in connection with a subcontract award) was "material" because it would have "had a natural tendency to influence" the government's decision to fund the subcontract "if it had known the full details" at the time of award, even though the government in fact concluded that no OCI existed when it subsequently learned of the issue and continued to pay for the subcontract work thereafter.

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