[23-1127] Wisconsin Bell, Inc. cv. United States, ex rel. Heath episode artwork

EPISODE · Nov 4, 2024 · 1H 33M

[23-1127] Wisconsin Bell, Inc. cv. United States, ex rel. Heath

from Supreme Court Oral Arguments

Wisconsin Bell, Inc. cv. United States, ex rel. Heath Justia · Docket · oyez.org Argued on Nov 4, 2024. Petitioner: Wisconsin Bell, Inc.Respondent: United States, ex rel. Todd Heath. Advocates: Allyson N. Ho (for the Petitioner) Tejinder Singh (for the Respondent) Vivek Suri (for the United States, as amicus curiae, supporting the Respondent) Facts of the case (from oyez.org) In 1996, Congress created the E-rate program to help schools and libraries afford telecommunications services. The program provides federal subsidies on a sliding scale, and service providers must follow the “lowest-corresponding-price” rule, offering schools and libraries the lowest price charged to similarly situated non-residential customers. Wisconsin Bell, aware of this rule since its inception, provided services to hundreds of eligible schools and libraries under the E-rate program. Despite knowing about the rule, Wisconsin Bell did not train its sales representatives or implement compliance mechanisms until 2009. The company admitted to treating pricing contracts for schools and libraries the same as other customers, often instructing sales representatives to offer the highest prices possible. In 2009, following a settlement by its parent company with the Department of Justice and FCC, Wisconsin Bell developed a compliance plan. In 2008, Todd Heath filed a qui tam action under the False Claims Act, alleging that Wisconsin Bell submitted false claims and certifications related to the E-rate program. After initial dismissal and subsequent appeal, the case proceeded to discovery, and the district court granted summary judgment in favor of Wisconsin Bell. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed and remanded, finding that Heath identified enough specific evidence of discriminatory pricing to allow a reasonable jury to find that Wisconsin Bell, acting with the required scienter, charged specific schools and libraries more than it charged similarly situated customers. Question Do reimbursement requests submitted to the Federal Communications Commission's E-rate program qualify as “claims” under the False Claims Act?

Episode metadata supplied by the publisher feed · Published Nov 4, 2024

Embed this episode

NOW PLAYING

[23-1127] Wisconsin Bell, Inc. cv. United States, ex rel. Heath

0:00 1:33:55

No transcript for this episode yet

We transcribe on demand. Request one and we'll notify you when it's ready — usually under 10 minutes.

No similar episodes found.

Frequently Asked Questions

How long is this episode of Supreme Court Oral Arguments?

This episode is 1 hour and 33 minutes long.

When was this Supreme Court Oral Arguments episode published?

This episode was published on November 4, 2024.

Can I download this Supreme Court Oral Arguments episode?

Yes. Use the download control on the episode player to save the publisher-provided media file.
URL copied to clipboard!