Have any False Claims Act cases in Minnesota led to settlements or judgments involving ABA or autism therapy providers since 2020?
Executive summary
There are no public False Claims Act (FCA) settlements or judgments involving ABA/autism therapy providers in Minnesota documented in the supplied sources for the period since 2020; instead, reporting and official releases describe active criminal charges and large FBI/agency investigations into alleged Medicaid and related fraud by autism providers, with at least one federal criminal charge announced in September 2025 tied to roughly $14 million in billed autism services and millions more in related nutrition claims [1] [2] [3]. Available sources do not mention any FCA civil settlements or judgments against autism/ABA providers in Minnesota since 2020 (not found in current reporting).
1. No documented FCA settlements for autism/ABA providers in these sources
The materials provided include press reports, DOJ/inspector-general notices and state press releases about investigations and criminal charges, but none of these documents report a False Claims Act settlement or civil judgment against an ABA/autism therapy provider in Minnesota since 2020; the sources instead describe criminal charging and active probes [1] [2] [4]. Therefore, based on the supplied reporting, FCA settlements or judgments involving autism therapy providers are not recorded (not found in current reporting).
2. Active, expanding criminal investigations and the first criminal charge
Multiple outlets and an HHS/OIG notice chronicle an active, broad federal probe into EIDBI (Early Intensive Developmental and Behavioral Intervention) autism services in Minnesota and related schemes; prosecutors filed the first criminal charge in that autism fraud investigation on September 24, 2025, against the owner of Smart Therapy, accused of approximately $14 million in allegedly fraudulent Medicaid billings [1] [5] [2]. State and federal agencies — including the Minnesota AG’s Medicaid Fraud Control Unit — assisted in search warrants and investigations [4].
3. Scale and overlap with other pandemic-era fraud probes
Reporting situates the autism investigations within a network of large-scale fraud probes in Minnesota — Feeding Our Future (pandemic-era child nutrition fraud), Housing Stabilization Services, and other Medicaid-related investigations — suggesting prosecutors view them as part of a wider web of alleged fraudulent claims that “stole billions” according to an acting U.S. attorney’s statement quoted in the press coverage [6] [3]. Several articles note links between Smart Therapy’s billing and Feeding Our Future meal-site claims [7] [8].
4. Allegations against providers — common themes in reporting
Warrant applications and news reports allege patterns such as enrolling children without proper diagnoses, hiring unqualified staff to bill as behavioral technicians, paying kickbacks to families, and billing for services or meals that were not provided — claims drawn from unsealed warrants and charging documents rather than civil FCA settlements [9] [8] [10]. For Smart Therapy, reporting cites $14 million billed to Medicaid and nearly $465,000 sought in child-nutrition reimbursements for purported meals [3] [8].
5. Where FCA suits typically show up and why they may be absent in these sources
FCA cases can be brought by whistleblowers (qui tam) and are sometimes resolved by settlement; Minnesota’s AG materials explain the FCA process and whistleblower shares of recoveries [11] [12]. But FCA suits are often filed under seal and may not appear in public press until a settlement, judgment, or government intervention is unsealed — which could explain the lack of reported FCA resolutions in the supplied documents [13]. Available sources do not report a public FCA civil settlement involving autism providers since 2020.
6. Competing viewpoints and limits of current reporting
News outlets and law enforcement portray the autism provider conduct as systemic and large-scale [9] [3]. Some local defense comments in stories (for example attorneys noting cooperation or that owners “set out to do good”) indicate nuance, but the supplied sources emphasize prosecutorial allegations and investigative findings [3] [10]. The limits: supplied reporting focuses on criminal charges, warrants and agency actions — it does not comprehensively catalog all FCA civil litigation in Minnesota, nor does it include court dockets or settlement notices beyond the cited criminal matter (not found in current reporting; p1_s3).
7. What to watch next
Because FCA matters often begin under seal and because the ongoing federal investigation has just produced criminal charges and unsealed warrants, future public disclosures could include FCA qui tam filings, government interventions, or civil settlements; the Minnesota AG and federal offices (DOJ, HHS-OIG) are already publicly engaged in the matter, per their statements and press releases [4] [5]. If you need confirmation of any FCA settlements or judgments as they emerge, consult DOJ, Minnesota AG press pages, or federal court dockets for qui tam cases in the District of Minnesota.
Limitations: this analysis strictly uses the supplied sources; if you want broader legal-docket verification (e.g., PACER searches for FCA civil suits or settlement filings), I can summarize those documents if you provide them or request I fetch them.