⚖ Oral Arguments, with Context

The Seventh Circuit considers whether SuperValu can face civil penalties for false pharmacy bills even without proven government losses. The dispute began with a price-matching program: cash customers could obtain discounted prescriptions, while the pharmacies reported higher prices as their usual and customary charges to government health programs. Whistleblowers sued under the False Claims Act, a law that lets private plaintiffs pursue fraud claims in the government's name. A pharmacy benefit manager, or PBM, is a private intermediary that helps administer prescription benefits. This case already reached the Supreme Court in 2023, which addressed the defendants' knowledge, not whether every bill was false. After the case returned for trial, the jury found for the whistleblowers on knowledge but found they had not proved the false claims caused government losses. The district court entered judgment for SuperValu and denied a new trial. The whistleblowers will argue that civil penalties do not require proven damages and that errors in the jury instructions require further proceedings. SuperValu will defend the judgment and challenge earlier rulings on falsity and on materiality, the ability to influence payment. Listen for the difference between a false bill, knowledge that it was false, and proof that it cost the government money. The parties also disagree about how any retrial should count individual claims.

Tracy Schutte v. SuperValu, Inc. (No. 25-3134) — United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, argued November 10, 2026.