On June 21, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review an appeals court decision that permits plaintiffs’ lawyers to use the federal False Claims Act (FCA) as a tool for regulating all promotional activities of drug and medical device manufacturers. The order denying review was a setback for WLF, which filed a brief warning that the appeals court decision threatens to suppress truthful speech about off-label uses of FDA-approved products. WLF argued that the FCA was intended as a means of preventing fraud against the U.S., not as a means of suppressing truthful speech and other legitimate promotional activities. In the absence of specific allegations that a pharmacy, acting at the behest of a drug manufacturer, sought payment under Medicaid or Medicare for drug costs that were not reimbursable, a complaint is subject to dismissal, WLF asserted. The appeals courts have issued conflicting decisions on this issue, so the Supreme Court will have to address it relatively soon.