Medicaid benefits). Some courts have adopted a theory of implied certification which imposes liability under the FCA: “Where the government pays funds to a party and would not have paid those funds had it known of a violation of a law or regulation, the claim submitted for those funds contained an implied certification of compliance with the law or regulation and was fraudulent.” United States ex rel. Pogue v. Diabetes Treatment Ctrs. of Am., Inc., 238 F.Supp.2d 258, 264 (D.D.C.2002) (listing courts that have also adopted some form of this so-called implied certification theory). However, many courts have also held, “Violations of laws, rules, or regulations alone do not create a cause of action under the FCA.” United States ex rel. Hopper v. Anton, 91 F.3d 1261, 1266 (9th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>); see also United States ex rel. Hendow v.
holding that alleged violations of a state statute did not give rise to federal constitutional claims holding that expressions of puffery and corporate optimism do not give rise to securities violations holding that failure to record an assignment does not give rise to a cause of action holding that these regulatory violations do not give rise to a viable fca action recognizing that while not all breaches of contract or regulatory violations automatically give rise to liability under the fca the false certification of compliance  creates liability when certification is a prerequisite to obtaining a government benefit