December, 16 2010, 12:16pm EDT

Pharmaceutical Industry Is Biggest Defrauder of the Federal Government Under the False Claims Act, New Public Citizen Study Finds
Civil, Criminal Settlements Have Increased Dramatically; Off-Label Promotion Largely Responsible
WASHINGTON
The drug industry has now become the biggest defrauder of the federal
government, as determined by payments it has made for violations of the
False Claims Act (FCA), surpassing the defense industry, which had long
been the leader, according to a new Public Citizen study released
today.
The study found that pharmaceutical cases accounted for at least 25
percent of all federal FCA payouts over the past decade, compared with
11 percent by the defense industry.
The fraud results were a key finding from a Public Citizen analysis
of all major pharmaceutical company civil and criminal settlements on
the state and federal levels since 1991 and found that the frequency
with which the pharmaceutical industry has allegedly violated federal
and state laws has increased at an alarming rate. Of the 165
pharmaceutical industry settlements comprising $19.8 billion in
penalties during the past 20 years, 73 percent of the settlements (121)
and 75 percent of the dollar amount ($14.8 billion) have occurred during
the past five years.
Many of the infractions, and the single largest category of financial
penalties, stemmed from the practice of off-label promotion of
pharmaceuticals - the illegal promotion of a drug for uses not approved
by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Off-label promotion can be
prosecuted as a criminal offense because of the potential for serious
adverse health consequences to patients from such promotional
activities. Another major category of federal financial penalties was
purposely overcharging for drugs under various federal programs, which
constitutes a violation of the FCA.
On the state level, the largest category of financial penalties has
come from companies deliberately overcharging state health programs,
such as Medicaid. Public Citizen's study found this to be the most
common category of violation among state settlements.
The increase in payments for fraud is likely attributable to drug
companies engaging in more wrongdoing and better enforcement at the
state and federal level, said Dr. Sidney Wolfe, director of the Health
Research Group at Public Citizen.
"Desperate to maintain their high margin of profit in the face of a
dwindling number of important new drugs, these figures show that the
industry has engaged in such activities as dangerous, illegal promotion
for unapproved uses of drugs and deliberately overcharging vital
government health programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid," said Wolfe.
Wolfe compiled and analyzed the data with physicians from the Johns
Hopkins General Preventive Medicine program, Drs. Sammy Almashat and
Charles Preston, as well as Columbia University public health student
Timothy Waterman, all of whom worked at Public Citizen.
Public Citizen's study also found that more than one-half of the
industry's fines were paid by just a few companies - GlaxoSmithKline,
Pfizer, Eli Lilly and Schering-Plough. These four companies accounted
for more than half of all financial penalties over the past two decades,
paying $10.5 billion in fines collectively. These pharmaceutical
companies were among the largest in the world. The two largest criminal
penalties ever assessed by the U.S. government against any companies
were against Lilly ($515 million) and Pfizer ($1.2 billion), both in
2009.
To conduct the study, Public Citizen created a database of
information about pharmaceutical companies' civil and criminal
settlements, including information about the type of alleged violation
and the amount of money paid in settlements. This study is the first to
attempt to document and analyze all major pharmaceutical company
settlements with both federal and state governments, the authors said.
Nationally, former pharmaceutical company employees and other
whistleblowers have been instrumental in bringing to light the most
egregious violations; they have initiated the largest number of federal
settlements in the past decade. The number of federal settlements
arising from whistleblower cases has more than doubled over the past
five years, yielding total payouts more than two and a half times higher
than in the previous 15 years combined.
Needed remedies include imposing steeper financial penalties and
criminally prosecuting company leadership, including jail sentences, if
merited.
"The danger to public safety and loss of state and federal dollars
that comes with these violations require a more robust response," Wolfe
said.
To read the full report, visit https://www.citizen.org/hrg1924.
Public Citizen is a nonprofit consumer advocacy organization that champions the public interest in the halls of power. We defend democracy, resist corporate power and work to ensure that government works for the people - not for big corporations. Founded in 1971, we now have 500,000 members and supporters throughout the country.
(202) 588-1000LATEST NEWS
Billionaire Palantir Co-Founder Pushes Return of Public Hangings as Part of 'Masculine Leadership' Initiative
"Immaturity masquerading as strength is the defining personal characteristic of our age," said one critic in response.
Dec 07, 2025
Venture capitalist Joe Lonsdale, a co-founder of data platform company Palantir, is calling for the return of public hangings as part of a broader push to restore what he describes as "masculine leadership" to the US.
In a statement posted on X Friday, Lonsdale said that he supported changing the so-called "three strikes" anti-crime law to ensure that anyone who is convicted of three violent crimes gets publicly executed, rather than simply sent to prison for life.
"If I’m in charge later, we won’t just have a three strikes law," he wrote. "We will quickly try and hang men after three violent crimes. And yes, we will do it in public to deter others."
Lonsdale then added that "our society needs balance," and said that "it's time to bring back masculine leadership to protect our most vulnerable."
Lonsdale's views on public hangings being necessary to restore "masculine leadership" drew swift criticism.
Gil Durán, a journalist who documents the increasingly authoritarian politics of Silicon Valley in his newsletter "The Nerd Reich," argued in a Saturday post that Lonsdale's call for public hangings showed that US tech elites are "entering a more dangerous and desperate phase of radicalization."
"For months, Peter Thiel guru Curtis Yarvin has been squawking about the need for more severe measures to cement Trump's authoritarian rule," Durán explained. "Peter Thiel is ranting about the Antichrist in a global tour. And now Lonsdale—a Thiel protégé—is fantasizing about a future in which he will have the power to unleash state violence at mass scale."
Taulby Edmondson, an adjunct professor of history, religion, and culture at Virginia Tech, wrote in a post on Bluesky that the rhetoric Lonsdale uses to justify the return of public hangings has even darker intonations than calls for state-backed violence.
"A point of nuance here: 'masculine leadership to protect our most vulnerable' is how lynch mobs are described, not state-sanctioned executions," he observed.
Theoretical physicist Sean Carroll argued that Lonsdale's remarks were symbolic of a kind of performative masculinity that has infected US culture.
"Immaturity masquerading as strength is the defining personal characteristic of our age," he wrote.
Tech entrepreneur Anil Dash warned Lonsdale that his call for public hangings could have unintended consequences for members of the Silicon Valley elite.
"Well, Joe, Mark Zuckerberg has sole control over Facebook, which directly enabled the Rohingya genocide," he wrote. "So let’s have the conversation."
And Columbia Journalism School professor Bill Grueskin noted that Lonsdale has been a major backer of the University of Austin, an unaccredited liberal arts college that has been pitched as an alternative to left-wing university education with the goal of preparing "thoughtful and ethical innovators, builders, leaders, public servants and citizens through open inquiry and civil discourse."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Hegseth Defends Boat Bombings as New Details Further Undermine Administration's Justifications
The boat targeted in the infamous September 2 "double-tap" strike was not even headed for the US, Adm. Frank Bradley revealed to lawmakers.
Dec 07, 2025
US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Saturday defended the Trump administration's policy of bombing suspected drug-trafficking vessels even as new details further undermined the administration's stated justifications for the policy.
According to the Guardian, Hegseth told a gathering at the Ronald Reagan presidential library that the boat bombings, which so far have killed at least 87 people, are necessary to protect Americans from illegal drugs being shipped to the US.
"If you’re working for a designated terrorist organization and you bring drugs to this country in a boat, we will find you and we will sink you," Hegseth said. "Let there be no doubt about it."
However, leaked details about a classified briefing delivered to lawmakers last week by Adm. Frank Bradley about a September 2 boat strike cast new doubts on Hegseth's justifications.
CNN reported on Friday that Bradley told lawmakers that the boat taken out by the September 2 attack was not even headed toward the US, but was going "to link up with another, larger vessel that was bound for Suriname," a small nation in the northeast of South America.
While Bradley acknowledged that the boat was not heading toward the US, he told lawmakers that the strike on it was justified because the drugs it was carrying could have theoretically wound up in the US at some point.
Additionally, NBC News reported on Saturday that Bradley told lawmakers that Hegseth had ordered all 11 men who were on the boat targeted by the September 2 strike to be killed because "they were on an internal list of narco-terrorists who US intelligence and military officials determined could be lethally targeted."
This is relevant because the US military launched a second strike during the September 2 operation to kill two men who had survived the initial strike on their vessel, which many legal experts consider to be either a war crime or an act of murder under domestic law.
Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.), the ranking member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, watched video of the September 2 double-tap attack last week, and he described the footage as “one of the most troubling things I’ve seen in my time in public service.”
“Any American who sees the video that I saw will see its military attacking shipwrecked sailors,” Himes explained. “Now, there’s a whole set of contextual items that the admiral explained. Yes, they were carrying drugs. They were not in position to continue their mission in any way... People will someday see this video and they will see that that video shows, if you don’t have the broader context, an attack on shipwrecked sailors.”
While there has been much discussion about the legality of the September 2 double-tap strike in recent days, some critics have warned that fixating on this particular aspect of the administration's policy risks taking the focus off the illegality of the boat-bombing campaign as a whole.
Daphne Eviatar, director for security and human rights for Amnesty International USA, said on Friday that the entire boat-bombing campaign has been "illegal under both domestic and international law."
"All of them constitute murder because none of the victims, whether or not they were smuggling illegal narcotics, posed an imminent threat to life," she said. "Congress must take action now to stop the US military from murdering more people in the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Leaked Memo Shows Pam Bondi Wants List of 'Domestic Terrorism' Groups Who Express 'Anti-American Sentiment'
"Millions of Americans like you and I could be the target," warned journalist Ken Klippenstein of the new memo.
Dec 07, 2025
A leaked memo written by US Attorney General Pam Bondi directs the Department of Justice to compile a list of potential "domestic terrorism" organizations that espouse "extreme viewpoints on immigration, radical gender ideology, and anti-American sentiment."
The memo, which was obtained by journalist Ken Klippenstein, expands upon National Security Presidential Memorandum-7 (NSPM-7), a directive signed by President Donald Trump in late September that demanded a "national strategy to investigate and disrupt networks, entities, and organizations that foment political violence so that law enforcement can intervene in criminal conspiracies before they result in violent political acts."
The new Bondi memo instructs law enforcement agencies to refer "suspected" domestic terrorism cases to the Joint Terrorism Task Forces (JTTFs), which will then undertake an "exhaustive investigation contemplated by NSPM-7" that will incorporate "a focused strategy to root out all culpable participants—including organizers and funders—in all domestic terrorism activities."
The memo identifies the "domestic terrorism threat" as organizations that use "violence or the threat of violence" to advance political goals such as "opposition to law and immigration enforcement; extreme views in favor of mass migration and open borders; adherence to radical gender ideology, anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism, or anti-Christianity; support for the overthrow of the United States Government; hostility towards traditional views on family, religion, and morality."
Commenting on the significance of the memo, Klippenstein criticized mainstream media organizations for largely ignoring the implications of NSPM-7, which was drafted and signed in the wake of the murder of right-wing activist Charlie Kirk.
"For months, major media outlets have largely blown off the story of NSPM-7, thinking it was all just Trump bluster and too crazy to be serious," he wrote. "But a memo like this one shows you that the administration is absolutely taking this seriously—even if the media are not—and is actively working to operationalize NSPM-7."
Klippenstein also warned that NSPM-7 appeared to be the start of a new "war on terrorism," but "only this time, millions of Americans like you and I could be the target."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular


