Proposed legislation would expand FTC enforcement powers and New York City consumer protections, increasing civil penalties and private litigation risks.

The FTC's action against Handy over “up to” earnings claims serves as a reminder that the agency remains focused on seeking civil penalties, while internal disagreement persists over the scope of its penalty offense authority.

Kathy Hochul’s FAIR Business Practices Act significantly expands New York’s consumer protection law, broadening the NYAG’s enforcement authority over unfair and abusive practices—including in purely commercial conduct—with health care as a key priority.

Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Chairman Andrew Ferguson announced the launch of a Healthcare Task Force on March 20, 2026, signaling a significant escalation in the FTC’s approach to healthcare oversight. The directive aligns with President Trump’s February 25, 2025 Executive Order, Making America Healthy Again by Empowering Patients with Clear, Accurate, and Actionable Healthcare Pricing Information (Executive Order), and reflects FTC’s intent to institutionalize and broaden healthcare enforcement while shaping policy moving forward. 

The Second Circuit weighs materiality under New York Executive Law Section 63(12), the scope of FTC injunctions, and the NYAG’s bid for damages in the Prevagen case.

Legal battle over Prevagen heads to the Second Circuit as FTC and NYAG dispute nationwide injunction, state authority, and standards for dietary supplement claims.

Our 2025 edition of EnforceMintz reflects on health care enforcement trends, predicts how health care enforcement may evolve, and offers practical guidance about what these trends and predictions mean for health care providers, payors, and other stakeholders.

In 2024, the HHS Office of Inspector General added the University of Colorado Health d/b/a/ UCHealth, an established provider, to the Heightened Scrutiny list after UCHealth settled an FCA case for $23 million, without an admission of wrongdoing.

In a resounding unanimous 9-0 decision, the Supreme Court rejected the argument that a defendant’s subjective belief is irrelevant under the False Claims Act (FCA) when evaluating whether a defendant “knowingly” submitted a false claim to the government for payment. On June 1, 2023, the Court issued its highly anticipated opinion in the consolidated cases U.S. ex rel. Schutte v. SuperValu, Inc. and U.S. ex rel. Proctor v. Safeway, Inc. (SuperValu) and addressed the question of whether a defendant is liable under the FCA if its conduct is consistent with an “objectively reasonable” interpretation of ambiguous statutory or regulatory language. Justice Thomas, writing for the Court, held that an “objectively reasonable” interpretation does not provide a complete legal defense to liability under the FCA. Rather, a defendant meets the FCA’s intent (scienter) requirement if the defendant’s subjective beliefs indicate it had knowledge that its submission of claims was “false or fraudulent,” regardless of whether the defendant’s conduct could be supported by a later “objectively reasonable” interpretation of the ambiguous legal or regulatory issue. Further, the Court articulated new standards for what might constitute “deliberate ignorance” or “reckless disregard” under the “knowledge” prong of the FCA.