Crashes, No Sound, or Screen Glitches?
Random freezes, missing sound and display glitches usually trace back to one bad driver. Find and replace yours safely.Free scan · under a minuteWindows Errors? Fix Them Before They Spread
Repair common Windows errors and clear accumulated junk for a smoother, more stable PC - no reinstall needed.Free scan · no reinstallOracle agreed in 2011 to pay the U.S. government $199.5 million, plus interest, to settle a False Claims Act lawsuit over its General Services Administration (GSA) contract. The agreement resolved allegations about commercial discount disclosures and government pricing; Oracle denied wrongdoing, and the settlement was not an admission of liability. This is a historical settlement, not a new 2026 payment announcement.
What Oracle agreed to pay
On October 6, 2011, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) announced that Oracle Corporation and Oracle America Inc. had agreed to pay $199.5 million plus interest. Under the settlement agreement, interest accrued at 1% annually from August 22, 2011, through payment. The records cited here do not independently establish when payment was completed. DOJ’s announcement and the settlement agreement set out the amount and terms.
Former Oracle employee Paul Frascella brought the case under the False Claims Act’s qui tam process, which allows private individuals to bring claims on the government’s behalf. The settlement allocated him a $40 million share of the government’s recovery. Separately, the agreement provided $2 million for his fees and costs; those amounts are distinct. DOJ characterized the resolution as the largest False Claims Act settlement GSA had obtained at that time, a description specific to 2011 rather than a current ranking.
What the government alleged
The GSA contract and disclosure obligations
Oracle’s 1998 GSA contract covered software licenses and technical support sold to government entities through the Multiple Award Schedule (MAS) program. DOJ describes MAS as a streamlined procurement route for government agencies and GSA-authorized purchasers. Companies participating in the program were required to disclose their commercial pricing practices and comply with their contract terms.
#1 Best Overall
Commercial discounts and government prices
The government alleged that Oracle failed to give GSA current, accurate, and complete information about its commercial sales practices and discounts, including larger discounts offered to commercial customers. It also alleged that Oracle failed to pass qualifying discounts through to government customers as required by the contract’s price reduction clause. According to DOJ, the result was that the United States accepted lower discounts and paid more than it should have for Oracle products. These were allegations resolved by settlement, not findings after a trial.
The filed agreement describes alleged false disclosures during contract negotiations and modifications, as well as alleged violations involving reseller referrals, transaction values and terms, and migration credits. It also says that inflated license prices could affect support prices calculated as a percentage of license price. Oracle denied the government’s contentions and denied wrongful conduct.
Did Oracle admit wrongdoing?
No. Oracle expressly denied the government’s allegations. The settlement agreement says it compromised disputed claims and did not constitute an admission of liability. The civil action was dismissed with prejudice after the parties entered the agreement, according to the court filing record. A dismissal with prejudice ended that action; it does not turn the settled allegations into adjudicated findings.
Why the case concerned government procurement
The dispute centered on two related but distinct contract duties: disclosing commercial pricing practices to GSA and applying the price reduction clause when qualifying commercial discounts changed. DOJ’s announcement quoted U.S. Attorney Neil H. MacBride saying, “To get access to hundreds of government purchasers, companies participating in the Multiple Award Schedule program must disclose their best prices.” The alleged failure to disclose or pass through discounts, rather than a consumer pricing dispute, was the core issue described by the government.
Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minute2Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errors3Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesAssistant Attorney General Tony West said the government viewed unlawful or fraudulent practices in securing government business as undermining procurement integrity and creating an unfair advantage over companies following the rules. Those statements described the government’s position in announcing the settlement; they are not a judicial determination that Oracle committed fraud.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.Key amounts in the settlement
| Amount | What it represents |
|---|---|
| $199.5 million plus interest | Payment Oracle agreed to make to resolve the claims; interest accrued at 1% annually from August 22, 2011, through payment, under the 2011 agreement. |
| $40 million | Paul Frascella’s share of the recovery, as described by DOJ and the settlement agreement. |
| $2 million | Separate amount for Frascella’s fees and costs under the settlement agreement. |
Sources: DOJ announcement, October 6, 2011; settlement agreement and court filing record.
Quick Recap
Best Value
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
