Opinion of the Court
ibid. And here, the FCA’s definition of “knowingly” confirms that assumption by largely tracking the common-law scienter standards for fraud.
On their face and at common law, the FCA’s standards focus primarily on what respondents thought and believed. First, the term “actual knowledge” refers to whether a person is “aware of ” information.[1] See Intel Corp. Investment Policy Comm. v. Sulyma, 589 U. S. ___, ___–___ (2020) (slip op., at 6–7); Escobar, 579 U. S., at 191 (“A defendant can have ‘actual knowledge’ that a condition is material without the Government expressly calling it a condition of payment”); Black’s Law Dictionary 784 (5th ed. 1979) (“to understand,” or “the perception of the truth”); Restatement (Second) of Torts §526, and Comment c. Second, the term “deliberate ignorance” encompasses defendants who are aware of a substantial risk that their statements are false, but intentionally avoid taking steps to confirm the statement’s truth or falsity. See Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S. A., 563 U. S. 754, 769 (2011); Black’s Law Dictionary, at 672 (“[v]oluntary ignorance”); Derry, 14 App. Cas., at 376. And, third, the term “reckless disregard” similarly captures defendants who are conscious of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that their claims are false, but submit the claims anyway. See Black’s Law Dictionary, at 1142; Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U. S. 825, 836 (1994); Restatement (Third) of Torts §10, Comment c.[2]
- ↑ Respondents contend that “information” can refer only to purely factual information, like the number of drugs sold. But the definition of “information” is broad, referring to all “knowledge obtained from investigation, study, or instruction.” See Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary 592 (1975); see also American Heritage Dictionary 674–675 (1981). And, in this context, the scienter requirement of the FCA is plainly directed to the falsity of the claims submitted. §3729(a)(1)(A).
- ↑ In some civil contexts, a defendant may be called “reckless” for acting in the face of an unjustifiably high risk of illegality that was so obvious that it should have been known, even if the defendant was not actually conscious of that risk. See Farmer, 511 U. S., at 836–837. We need not
