Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
Victoria Starr filed a False Claims Act case against Janssen in 2004, and it became part of Johnson & Johnson’s much broader 2013 resolution. The U.S. Department of Justice reported that Pennsylvania whistleblowers collectively received $112 million from the federal government’s share—but it did not disclose Starr’s individual award. That distinction matters: the often-cited $2.2 billion figure was the overall settlement, not money paid to Starr.
What was Victoria Starr’s case?
North Carolina’s official settlement agreement identifies Victoria Starr as a relator who filed a qui tam action on April 7, 2004, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The case was captioned United States of America ex rel. Victoria Starr v. Janssen Pharmaceutica Prods. L.P. The agreement groups her action with other civil actions resolved as part of the multistate settlement. Read the North Carolina settlement agreement.
A qui tam action is a lawsuit brought by a private person on the government’s behalf under the False Claims Act. Starr’s suit was one of several relator actions involved in the wider resolution; the public records cited here do not establish that she alone brought about the entire settlement.
How much did Victoria Starr receive?
The DOJ’s November 4, 2013 announcement does not state Starr’s individual award. It says that whistleblowers in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania received a collective $112 million from the federal government’s share. Because that amount covered a group associated with multiple relator actions, it cannot be treated as Starr’s personal payment or divided evenly to estimate one.
Recommended Free Tools
#1 Best Overall
The announcement separately reported $27.7 million for whistleblowers in the District of Massachusetts and $28 million for a whistleblower in the Northern District of California. Those awards were tied to other matters within the broader resolution, not to Starr’s individual case. See DOJ’s settlement announcement and award figures.
What did the 2013 Johnson & Johnson resolution cover?
On November 4, 2013, the Justice Department announced that Johnson & Johnson and subsidiaries would pay more than $2.2 billion to resolve criminal and civil liability related to allegations involving Risperdal, Invega, and Natrecor. DOJ broke the total into $485 million in criminal fines and forfeiture and $1.72 billion in civil settlements with the federal government and states. These are components of the overall resolution, not additional amounts to add to the $2.2 billion figure.
Rank #2
- Ideal for Gifting
- Ideal for a bookworm
- Compact for travelling
| Reported amount | What it refers to |
|---|---|
| More than $2.2 billion | Overall criminal and civil resolution announced by DOJ in 2013 |
| $485 million | Criminal fines and forfeiture |
| $1.72 billion | Civil settlements with the federal government and states |
| $112 million | Collective award to Pennsylvania whistleblowers from the federal government’s share; not a disclosed individual award for Starr |
What were the criminal and civil allegations?
Criminal resolution involving Risperdal
DOJ said Janssen’s criminal resolution concerned promotion of Risperdal for use in elderly patients with dementia, a use not approved by the FDA. Janssen admitted promoting the drug to health care providers to treat psychotic symptoms and related behavioral disturbances in elderly, non-schizophrenic dementia patients. DOJ stated that the plea would become final upon court acceptance.
Civil allegations involving Risperdal, Invega, and Natrecor
In its civil complaint, DOJ alleged that Johnson & Johnson and Janssen caused false claims through off-label promotion, misleading safety and efficacy claims, and kickbacks related to Risperdal and Invega. DOJ also described separate civil allegations involving kickbacks to Omnicare and marketing Natrecor for outpatient infusion use.
What’s actually slowing this PC down?
Pick the symptom - the matching free tool is one click away.
The criminal plea and the civil settlement are distinct. DOJ said the civil claims were settled without a determination of liability, except where subsidiaries pleaded guilty or agreed to plead guilty to criminal charges. The allegations in the civil complaint should therefore not be presented as findings that the companies were liable on every civil claim.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.How Starr’s case fits into the broader settlement
“Victoria Starr’s settlement” is shorthand for her action’s place in a multi-party resolution. The 2013 agreement involved multiple investigations, relator actions, drugs, and jurisdictions. The Pennsylvania whistleblower award was collective; the Massachusetts and California figures concerned whistleblowers in other districts. None of those group or case-level totals identifies Starr’s personal share.
Rank #4
This is the 2013 Risperdal, Invega, and Natrecor enforcement resolution. It should not be confused with later Johnson & Johnson matters, including talc litigation. DOJ’s index of records for the settlement lists the underlying Eastern District of Pennsylvania civil settlement agreement, complaint, criminal information, plea agreement, and exhibits. Consult DOJ’s document index.
Quick Recap
Best Value
- It can be a gift option
- Comes with secure packaging
- Helpful in various ways
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.
Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errors2Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitches3Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problems
