Opinion of the Court
price for that drug.[1] But, according to petitioners, respondents reported higher prices to these entities than the ones that they usually and customarily charged to the public.
B
According to petitioners, in 2006, respondents’ competitor, Walmart, began offering 30-day supplies of many drugs for $4.[2] To compete with Walmart, SuperValu and Safeway adopted price-match programs in which their pharmacies would match a competitor’s lower price at a customer’s request. SuperValu’s pharmacies would then automatically apply that price to future refills of the drug for those customers. Meanwhile, Safeway also adopted a “membership” discount program through which customers received discounted generic drug prices (often $4 for a 30-day supply). To enroll in that membership program, customers had to fill out a form with only basic information; petitioners argue that Safeway often already had this information on file. SuperValu’s programs continued until 2016; Safeway’s continued until 2015.
Respondents’ discount programs turned out to be popular. Though the exact extent of that popularity is disputed, petitioners have presented evidence that the discounted prices comprised a majority of sales for many drugs to customers who paid in cash (and not through insurance) for at least some years during the programs’ operation. For example, according to petitioners, a majority of SuperValu’s 2012 cash sales for 44 of its 50 top-selling prescription
- ↑ The FCA covers claims presented both to the Federal Government and to a federal “contractor, grantee, or other recipient” when, as relevant here, the money is “to be spent or used … to advance a Government program.” 31 U. S. C. §3729(b)(2)(A).
- ↑ Respondents, of course, demur and portray themselves in a far more sympathetic light. We do not resolve any of those factual disputes today, as we resolve only a legal question arising from the grant of summary judgment to respondents. In this posture, we must take the evidence in petitioners’ favor.
