In Episode 33 of False Claims Act Insights, Claire Postman and I tackle a critical challenge for healthcare providers: balancing HIPAA compliance with civil investigative demands (CIDs) in False Claims Act investigations. Claire explains HIPAA’s general prohibition on disclosing protected health information and the key exceptions that permit disclosure when required by law, such as
The Department of Justice (DOJ) has made it abundantly clear: healthcare fraud remains at the top of its enforcement priorities for 2025 and beyond. In a May 2025 memorandum, Acting Assistant Attorney General Matthew R. Galeotti outlined the Criminal Division’s renewed commitment to “focus, fairness, and efficiency” in the fight against white-collar crime—with healthcare
Episode 32 of the False Claims Act Insights has posted. In it, Julia Kopcienski and I discuss a recent report published by Husch Blackwell that explores the Trump administration’s demonstrated commitment to enforcing federal anti-discrimination laws through novel and varied mechanisms, like the False Claims Act. We talk about why the use of the FCA
As two defendants in an alleged cryptocurrency fraud case are finding out, what you search for on the internet could find its way into the courtroom and be used against you. The use of internet search history as evidence in federal criminal cases is relatively new. In this case, prosecutors are seeking to introduce defendants’ post-trade internet searches as evidence of fraudulent intent. Their searches allegedly ranged from “top crypto law firms” and “wire fraud statute” to “can your device be searched without a lawyer” and “crypto theft deductible.”
The critical question: should internet search history be admissible as evidence at trial? The answer is far from simple. Defendants generally have moved to exclude them, and the arguments for and against exclusion highlight the complex interplay between relevance, prejudice, ambiguity, and privilege.
Recent Settlements
On July 31, 2025, the DOJ announced that a California-based defense contractor, and its private equity owner Gallant Capital Partners agreed to pay $1.75 million to resolve allegations that they knowingly failed to comply with cybersecurity requirements in a contract with the Department of the Air Force. The government acknowledged that the companies
We’ve just put the wraps on Episode 31 of the False Claims Act Insights podcast where I had a great conversation with longtime healthcare law veterans Brett McNeal and David Traskey covering advisory opinions from the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Inspector General. We discuss how the highly qualified and sometimes equivocal
When companies receive their first 2703(d) order from law enforcement, their response is usually a mix of confusion and terror. In the ever-evolving landscape of digital communications, understanding the legal mechanisms that govern data access is crucial. One such mechanism is the 2703(d) order, a powerful tool that law enforcement is using more and more as digital evidence becomes more robust and complex. This post examines the nature of a 2703(d) order and considers its implications for organizations, privacy officers, compliance professionals, and defense counsel.