Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-1326_6jfl.pdf
Page Number: 7.0

4 

UNITED STATES EX REL. SCHUTTE v. SUPERVALU INC. 

Opinion of the Court 

price for that drug.1  But, according to petitioners, respond-
ents 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’ competi-
tor, 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 re-
quest.  SuperValu’s pharmacies would then automatically 
apply that price to future refills of the drug for those cus-
tomers.  Meanwhile, Safeway also adopted a “membership” 
discount  program  through  which  customers  received  dis-
counted 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.  Su-
perValu’s programs continued until 2016; Safeway’s contin-
ued until 2015. 

Respondents’ discount  programs turned out to be popu-
lar.  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 cus-
tomers who paid in cash (and not through insurance) for at 
least some years during the programs’ operation.  For ex-
ample, according to petitioners, a majority of SuperValu’s
2012  cash  sales  for  44  of  its  50  top-selling  prescription 

—————— 

1 The  FCA  covers  claims  presented  both  to  the  Federal  Government
and to a federal “contractor, grantee, or other recipient” when, as rele-
vant here, the money is “to be spent or used . . . to advance a Government 
program.”  31 U. S. C. §3729(b)(2)(A). 

2 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.