From the TIKC Advisory Team · Federal Contracting News
DOJ Just Rewrote the False Claims Act Playbook. Two Changes Every Contractor Should Know.
On September 18, 2026, DOJ revised its False Claims Act policy in two big ways: it can no longer build a case on non-binding agency…

Published 2026 | TIKC NewsWire
On September 18, 2026, the Department of Justice quietly reshaped how the government’s most powerful contractor-fraud tool will be used. In revisions to the Justice Manual, DOJ made two significant changes to its False Claims Act enforcement policy. One narrows what the government can build a case on. The other puts every whistleblower lawsuit under new scrutiny. Neither repeals the False Claims Act, which recovered billions again last fiscal year, but both change the terrain, and both matter to small businesses.
Change one: guidance documents are not law
The first change addresses a long-running frustration in industry. DOJ will no longer treat non-binding agency guidance, things like memoranda, policy statements, FAQs, and informal directives, as the basis for a False Claims Act violation. Going forward, an FCA case must rest on a binding legal obligation found in a statute, a regulation, or an enforceable contract term. A violation of a mere guidance document, without more, is not supposed to become a fraud case.
That is meaningful, but read the fine print. Guidance can still play limited roles. Prosecutors may use it to show that a contractor knew a requirement (knowledge or scienter), to establish industry or professional standards, to explain a technical process, to prove a false certification of compliance, and to provide context in filings. So guidance has not vanished from FCA cases. It has been demoted from the foundation to supporting evidence.
Change two: every qui tam suit gets a dismissal review
The second change cuts the other way and touches the whistleblower engine directly. DOJ has directed its prosecutors to assess the potential for dismissal in every qui tam case, including revisiting cases the government previously declined as litigation develops. The Manual also broadened what can be considered meritless, removing older language that required a claim to be facially defective or its factual allegations frivolous before dismissal was on the table.
There is a new procedural guardrail too. Before a U.S. Attorney’s Office files a motion to dismiss a qui tam case, it must notify DOJ’s Civil Fraud Section headquarters at least ten days in advance, giving Washington more central oversight of these decisions. For perspective, DOJ dismissed 25 qui tam cases in 2025, and historically dismissals have happened in well under one percent of FCA cases, so this is a shift in posture, not a mass clearing of the docket.
What it means for small businesses
Do not read this as a reason to relax. The first change is genuinely helpful: it means you are less likely to face a fraud case built on an agency FAQ or an informal memo you may never have seen. But your binding obligations, the statutes, the regulations, and the terms in your contract, are exactly where enforcement will now concentrate. That makes it more important than ever to know precisely what your contract and the applicable rules require, not just what a guidance document suggests.
The second change offers modest comfort against opportunistic whistleblower suits, but the qui tam mechanism remains fully alive. Insiders and competitors can still file, the government can still intervene, and treble damages still apply. If anything, the message is consistency: build your compliance around real, binding requirements, document everything, and disclose problems promptly. That posture protects you no matter which way the policy winds blow.
What to do now
- Map your binding obligations. Identify the statutes, regulations, and contract terms that actually govern your work, and comply with those first.
- Do not ignore guidance. It still proves knowledge and industry standards, so understand the guidance that applies to your field.
- Keep certifications honest. A false compliance certification remains a live FCA theory regardless of these changes.
- Maintain your disclosure habit. Prompt, documented disclosure of problems still protects present responsibility.
- Watch how courts apply this. Policy in the Justice Manual guides prosecutors, but the case law will shape how far it reaches.
The rules of enforcement just shifted, but the winning strategy did not. Know your binding obligations, meet them precisely, and keep your record clean. Brick by brick.
FAQ
What did DOJ change about agency guidance?
DOJ will no longer use non-binding guidance, such as memos, policy statements, and FAQs, as the basis for a False Claims Act violation. Cases must rest on binding statutes, regulations, or contract terms, though guidance can still show knowledge and industry standards.
What changed about whistleblower dismissals?
DOJ now directs prosecutors to consider dismissing every qui tam case, broadened what counts as meritless, and requires ten days’ notice to headquarters before filing a dismissal motion.
Does this weaken the False Claims Act?
No. The FCA remains fully in force with treble damages and active qui tam suits. The changes refine how DOJ builds and screens cases, not the statute itself.
How should my compliance program respond?
Focus on binding legal requirements in statutes, regulations, and your contract, keep certifications accurate, understand relevant guidance, and disclose problems promptly.
Sources
U.S. Department of Justice. (2026). Revisions to the Justice Manual on False Claims Act enforcement, use of guidance, and dismissal authority.
U.S. Department of Justice. (2026). False Claims Act settlements and judgments, fiscal year 2025.
This article is general information, not legal advice.
About the Author
Melanie Patterson
Founder and CEO of Team Integrity Knowledge Center and creator of GovCon iSource. Former nurse turned entrepreneur with over 10 years guiding small, women-owned, and minority-owned businesses to over $10 million in government awards. Build, grow, scale, brick by brick. Contact
Your next step
Talk it through with a TIKC advisor
Continue reading
Related stories

One Faked Test Cost a Navy Supplier $10.9 Million
A company that makes steel for Navy ships let a tester change results so weak steel looked like it passed. It is paying about $10.9…

When Competitors Become Co-Conspirators: Bid Rigging and Collusion
A quiet word with a competitor about who wins which job feels like cooperation. It is a federal antitrust crime. Bid rigging and collusion carry…

The Set-Aside That Was Performed by the Wrong Company. A $4.8 Million Lesson.
A federal IT contractor and its owner agreed to pay $4.8 million after allegedly paying fees to 8(a) firms to win set-aside work, then doing…

The Cover-Up That Is Worse Than the Problem: Obstruction and Altering Records
When an audit or investigation looms, the instinct to clean up a file is a catastrophic one. Deleting an email or backdating a document can…

The Official Who Approved His Own Payday. A Conflict-of-Interest Indictment.
A government contracting official was charged after allegedly approving invoices that funneled money back to a side business he profited from, aided by a contractor…

The Case You Never See Coming: The FCA Seal, First-to-File, and the Disclosure Bar
A whistleblower suit can sit under court seal for years while the government investigates you in secret. Understanding the seal, the first-to-file rule, and the…

Winning on a Promise You Cannot Keep: Fraud in the Inducement
Overstate your staff, your experience, or your capabilities to win the award, and you can poison the entire contract. Fraud in the inducement means the…

The Loyalty You Owe: Honest Services Fraud and the Hidden Conflict
You can commit a federal crime without stealing a dollar. Honest services fraud punishes the person who secretly sells out the loyalty they owe, through…

$377 Million for the Costs It Should Not Have Billed. A Mischarging Lesson.
A major contractor agreed to pay $377 million, one of the largest procurement fraud settlements ever, over how it billed indirect costs to the government…
The Chip That Was Not Real: Counterfeit Electronic Parts and Your Duty to Catch Them
A single counterfeit microchip in a defense system can cost lives and end a company. For many contractors, the law does not just punish knowingly…

Signing for Your Code: The Secure Software Development Self-Attestation
If you sell software to the government, a senior executive now has to personally attest that it was built following secure development practices. That signature…

The NDA Clause That Can Void Your Contract: The Anti-Gag Rule
That confidentiality agreement your employees sign may quietly break federal law. The anti-gag rule bars contractors from using NDAs that stop employees from reporting fraud…




