Full opinion text
MEMORANDUM OPINION RUDOLPH CONTRERAS, United States District Judge Granting in Part and Denying in Part Dependant’s Motion to Dismiss; Denying the United States’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment I. INTRODUCTION In the course óf her work at Symantec Corporation, Lori Morsell came to believe that, her employer had violated certain contractual obligations to the United States. She subsequently filed this qui tam action as Relator against Symantec under the False Claims Act. The United States, California, and Florida intervened, and Relator elected to assert claims on behalf of New York. All plaintiffs filed a joint complaint. Presently before the Court are Symantec’s motion .to dismiss the complaint and the United States’ motion for partial summary judgment. Because the United States adequately, pleads all of its claims but California, Florida, and Relator fail to do so, the Court grants in part and denies in part Symantec’s motion to dismiss. Because there are genuine disputes of material fact as to all issues presented in the United States’ motion for partial summary judgment, the. Court denies that motion in full. II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND A. Negotiation of the Contract Symantec Corporation provides software and services in the areas of security, storage, and backup. See Omnibus and Restated Complaint and Complaint in Intervention (“Omnibus Complaint”) ¶ 20, ECF No. 41. The instant dispute arises out of Symantec’s negotiation and performance of a Multiple Award Schedule (“MAS”) contract for supplying a range of products, licenses, and services to the federal government (the “Contract” or “GSA Contract”). See id. ¶¶ 21, 55, 56. MAS contracts enable the General Services Administration (“GSA”) to streamline federal government procurement by providing pre-negotiated maximum prices and other terms that govern all subsequent purchases • covered by the contract. See id. ¶¶ 33-35.. The GSA establishes federal regulations governing solicitations, negotiations, and contracts executed under the MAS program. See id. ¶¶ 39-52. These regulations prescribe standard questions contained in MAS solicitations, in response to which the offeror must disclose certain information in a Commercial Sales Practice Format, known as the offeror’s “CSPs.” See id. ¶¶ 41-42; 48 C.F.R. § 515.408 (MÁS Requests for Information); id. § 515.408, fig. § 515.4 (Instructions for the Commercial Sales Practices Format). Additionally, an offeror seeking an MAS contract must provide information that is “current, accurate, and complete” as of fourteen calendar days prior to submission. ' See id. § 515.408, fig. 515.4. For their part, 'GSA contracting officers are required to “seek to obtain the offeror’s best price (the best price given to the most favored customer).” Id. § 538.270(a). To this end, contracting officers must “compare the terms and conditions of the [offer- or’s response to the] MAS solicitation with the terms and conditions of agreements with the offeror’s commercial customers.” Id. § 538.270(c); see also Omnibus Compl. ¶¶ 31-52 (reviewing MAS regulatory scheme). In February 2006, in response to the GSA’s solicitation for the Contract, Symantec submitted an initial offer containing its CSPs. See Omnibus Compl. ¶¶41, 58. Consistent with applicable regulations, the solicitation asked in Question 3 whether the discounts and concessions offered by Symantec to. the Government were “equal to or better than [its] best price ... offered to any customer acquiring the ¡same items regardless of quantity or terms and conditions.” Omnibus Compl. ¶ 59; CSPs, Def.’s Attach. A, EOF No. 46-1. In response to this question, Symantec checked the box for “NO.” Id. ;. Question 4(a) directed Symantec to disclose information in the standard CSP format about its discounting practices. -See CSPs, Def.’s Attach. Ai To comply with this requirement, Symantec attached several charts. See Omnibus Compl. ¶ 61. One chart purported to describe the frequency of non-published discounts by magnitude for 2005 sales (“Frequency Chart”). See id. ¶ 64.a. The Frequency Chart showed that in 2005, Symantec offered non-published discounts of over 40% only very rarely — less than 3% of the time. See id. ¶ 65. Moreover, the chart 'showed that in 0.02% of sales, Symantec offered discounts ranging from 91-100%. See CSPs, Def.’s Attach. A. The Frequency Chart, however, included numerous published discounts, in addition to the non-published discounts it purported to reflect. This erroneous inclusion of published discounts caused Symantec to understate the frequency of discounts above 40% (and, for the same reason, to inflate the frequency of discounts below 40%). See Omnibus Compl. ¶¶ 101, .102. Had the Frequency Chart included only won-published discounts, it would have shown that in 2005, Symantec provided non-published discounts above 40% over 20% of the time — not merely 3%. See id. ¶ 103. Symantec knew of the Frequency Chart’s inclusion of published discounts, among other inaccuracies. See id. ¶¶ 108-12. ■ A second chart purported to' set forth the types of reasons for Symantec’s- non-published discounts and = the frequency of each type (“Reason Code Chart”). See id. ¶ 64.b. According to the Reason Code Chart, a sizeable plurality (47%) of nonstandard discounts resulted from proration of service agreements and adjustments to enterprise license agreements, and Symantec offered non-standard discounts for “other” reasons not specified in the chart relatively infrequently — only 7% of the time. See id. ¶¶ 67, 68; see also -CSPs, Def.’s Attach. A. A third chart purported to report the level of management approval required at various discount magnitudes (“Management Approval Chart”). See Omnibus Compl. ¶ 64.c. For instance, according to the Management Approval Chart, all discounts greater than 50% required approval by a Regional Vice President. See id. ¶ 69. • In actuality, however, both the Reason Code Chart and Management Approval Chart were inaccurate. The charts were generated using data from “eSPÁ” — Symantec’s system for approving non-published discounts. See id. ¶¶ 81, 99. In 2005, however, over 9,000 commercial orders receiving non-published discounts were not processed through the eSPA system. See id. ¶ 99. Accordingly, neither the Reason Code Chart nor Management Approval Chart accounted for these orders. Symantec knew at the time, that eSPA was an ineffective system for monitoring discounts. See id. ¶¶ 100,104-07. ■ Question 4(b) asked whether “any deviations” from Symantec’s disclosed policies and- practices “ever result in better - discounts (lower prices) or concessions, than indicated.” Id. ¶ 59; CSPs, Def.’s Attach. A. Symantec responded “NO.” Id. The February 2006 offer containing the CSPs was signed by Symantec’s Senior Director of Public Sector Business Operations Kim Bradbury. See Omnibus Compl. ¶ 56. During the subsequent MAS contract negotiation, Bradbury submitted various materials to GSA contracting officer Gwen Dixon elaborating on the pricing offered by Symantec. In October 2006, Bradbury emailed Dixon a presentation purporting to give “an overview of new discounting policies and procedures for all products sold by Symantec Corporation” (“October 2006 Presentation”). Id. ¶ 72. The October 2006 Presentation mentioned five buying programs — (a) Express, (b) Government, (e) Academic, (d) Rewards, and (e) Enterprise Options — along with the requirements for purchasing at different pricing levels or “bands” within each program. Id. ¶¶ 78-75. .According to the October 2006 Presentation, in order to obtain Rewards program pricing, customers had to accumulate points based oh the volume of their purchases and were required to make a minimum initial purchase amounting to 6,000 points.- See id. ¶¶ 78, 79. The points, moreover, expired after two years. See id. ¶ 80. Bradbury also provided Dixon with documents stating that Symantec’s “Government buying program” enjoyed a discount of 0% to 16% off of “Commercial MSRP.” Id. ¶ 87. Lastly, Bradbury averred that “[a]ny deviations from published discounts require management approval,” and that “[djeviations must be documented and. approved in accordance with ... guidelines,” such as meeting competition and market segment penetration. Id. ¶ 90. These disclosures were allegedly false or incomplete. First, the “Commercial MSRP” that Symantec used as a baseline for communicating the offered discounts was derived solely from the Express program pricelist and did not reflect prices for all of Symantec’s commercial customers. See id. ¶ 88. Symantec further failed to disclose to the GSA that pricing under the Rewards buying program was better than that offered through the Express, Government, and Academic programs. See id, ¶¶ 76-77, 85, 115. Symantec also did not explain how customers accumulated points, or how easily commercial customers could qualify for Rewards pricing by earning at worst one point for every five dollars spent. See id. ¶ 116. Symantec did not disclose documented exceptions to the Rewards program rules — the minimum initial purchase requirement, points needed to enjoy better pricing bands, and the two-year validity period for points. See id. ¶ 118. Lastly, Symantec failed tó disclose any information about its rebate programs. See id. ¶¶ 62, 77, 123, Symantec had contemporaneous knowledge of all of these inaccuracies. See id. ¶¶ 119-26. On January 25, 2007, Symantec • sent Dixon its Final Proposal Revision for-the Contract. See id. ¶ 93. Symantec stated therein that “all commercial business practices have been fully disclosed and are current, accurate and complete as of the conclusion of the negotiation,” and certified “that the discounts, pricing' and/or rates given to the government are either equal to and/or greater than what is granted to any commercial and/or Government customer under similar terms and conditions.” Id. ¶ 94. Symantec also proposed that the GSA receive these discounts off of published pricelists: (i) for hardware appliance, enterprise availability, backup executive, and security products and' services, Symantec offered the GSA pricing at between 5% and 35% off of Government End User MSRP; and (ii) for training, professional, managed security, and technical support services, Symantec offered the GSA pricing at between 5% and 10% off, of “Gom,mercial MSRP.” Id. ¶ 95. That same day, the GSA accepted Symantec’s offer as revised by .the Final Proposal Revision, thereby executing the Contract., See id. ¶ 96.' Incorporated into the Contract is a standard mechanism known as the “Price Reductions Clause,” which helps ensure that the GSA continues to receive favorable pricing and terms during the performance of an MAS contract. The Clause provides; (a)Before award of a contract, the Contracting Officer and the Offeror will agree upon (1) the customer (or category of customers) which will be the basis of award, and (2) the Government’s price or discount relationship to the identified customer (or category of customers). This relationship shall, be maintained through out the contract period. Any change in the Contractor’s commercial pricing or discount arrangement applicable to the identified customer (or category of customers) which-disturbs this relationship shall constitute a price reduction. ■ (b) During the contract period, the Contractor shall report to the Contracting Officer all price reductions to the customer (or category of customers) that was the basis of award. The Contractor’s report shall include an explanation of the conditions under which the reductions were made. (c)(1) A price reduction shall apply to purchases under this contract if, after the date negotiations conclude, the Contractor— (1) Revises the commercial catalog, pricelist, schedule or other document upon which contract award was predicated to reduce prices; (ii) Grants more favorable discounts ■ or terms and conditions than those contained in the-commercial catalog, pricelist, schedule or other documents upon which contract award was predicated; or (iii) Grants special discounts to the customer (or category of customers) that formed the basis of award, and the change disturbs the price/discount relationship of the Government to the customer (or category of customers) that , was the basis of award. (2) The Contractor shall offer the price reduction to the Government with the same effective date, and for the same time period, as extended to the commercial customer (or, .category of customers) 48 C.F.R. § 552.238-75(a)-(c); see also Omnibus Compl. ¶¶ 48-52. Additionally, the Price Reduction Clause requires contractors to notify the Government of any price reduction “as soon as possible, but not later than 15 calendar, days after its effective, date,” 48 C.F.R. § 552.238-75®, and to modify the contract “to reflect any price reduction which becomes applicable,” id. § 552.238-75(g). In accordance with the Price Reduction Clause, and by the terms of the Final Proposal Revision, Symantec and the GSA agreed that the Contract’s “basis of award” would be Symantec’s “commercial class of customers.” See Omnibus Compl. ¶¶ 127-28. B. Performance of the Contract The Contract was in effect from January 2007 through September 2012. See id. ¶ 5. During the life of the Contract, Symantec made numerous claims for payment under the Contract or derivative agreements. See id. ¶ 134. Meanwhilé, Symantec extended more favorable pricing to numerous similarly situated commercial customers. This better pricing resulted from non-published discounts, see id. ■ ¶ 135, the Rewards buying program, see id, ¶ 144, exceptions and modifications to Express and Rewards buying program terms, see id. ¶¶ 146-57, and rebates, see id. ¶¶ 158-60. Based on the volume of purchases made, the Government would have,qualified for the best pricing under the Rewards program within days of entering into the Contract. See id. ¶¶ 140-43. Symantec neither informed the GSA of the better pricing offered to its commercial customers nor adjusted the Government’s pricing under the Contract to match discounts enjoyed by those commercial customers. See id. ¶¶133, 135, 145, 157, 160. Lastly, Symantec’s discounting practices during the life of the Contract ‘ departed significantly from the Frequency Chart’s representation. S.ee id. ¶¶ 137-39. Rather than disclose any of these circumstances to the GSA, Symantec, in the course of requesting modifications to the Contract, repeatedly certified to the GSA that its previously disclosed commercial sales practices “ha[d] not changed.” Id. ¶¶ 182-83. While making these certifications, Symantec’s management knew that Symantec lacked systems for maintaining the relationship between the GSA’s and commercial- pricing, that Symantec’s discounting programs were in a state of disarray, that-commercial customers were in fact receiving better pricing than Symantec, and that sales representatives received no training on the-' Contract’s requirements. See id. ¶¶ 161-80, 185. Symantec’s false and inaccurate initial disclosures, violations of the Price Reduction Clause, and certifications that its initial disclosures remained unchanged caused the Government to overpay for Symantec products by millions of dollars on sales directly made by Symantec under the Contract. See id. ¶¶ 186-87. Additionally, Symantec authorized the GSA and certain independent resellers to use its CSPs and other disclosures in negotiating their own MAS contracts for the sale of Symantec products. See id. ¶¶ 189-96. The resellers subsequently made numerous inflated claims for payment under those MAS contracts. See id. ¶¶ 195-96. Accordingly, Symantec caused the Government to overpay by millions of dollars for Symantec products purchased from the resellers. See id. ¶ 197. C. State Contracts 1, California To expedite state agencies’ procurement, the California Department of General Services -;(“DGS”) solicits, negotiates, and awards Leveraged Procurement Agreements (“LPAs”). See id. ¶203. Two types of LPAs govern procurement of information technology .products and services — (1) California Multiple Award Schedule (“CMAS”) contracts and (2) Software License Program (“SLP”) contracts. Id. ¶ 205. The pricing and terms of CMAS a'nd SLP "contracts are not usually negotiated or solicited competitively by California; instead, they are generally- based upon previously awarded- federal GSA MAS contracts, though agencies may attempt to negotiate better pricing and terms. Id. ¶¶ 207-08,214-17. Beginning as early as March 2009, Symantec authorized certain independent resellers to respond to a CMAS solicitation by offering Symantec products covered by the GSA Contract. See id. .¶ 220. Similarly, in as early as December 2009,. Symantec submitted an SLP Letter of Offer to DGS to supply Symantec products, through certain resellers, at discounts mirroring those enjoyed by the GSA under the GSA Contract. See id. ¶ 223. Specifically, the SLP Letter of Offer states that, subject to certain conditions, Symantec “will extend to thé Authorized Resellers the discount levels identified in Exhibit B,” which lists discounts ranging from 5% to 35%. SLP Letter of Offer, Def.’s Attach. D, ECF No.-46-4. The Letter also states that “[t]he State shall be responsible for independently negotiating - the final purchase price and payment terms with its Authorized Resellers.” Id. Ultimately, DGS awarded CMAS and SLP contracts to numerous resellers. See Omnibus Compl. ¶¶221, 224. Those resellers, in turn, sold Symantec products to various California agencies. See id. ¶¶ 226-37. 2. Florida In April 2006, the Division of State Purchasing of Florida’s Department of Management Services issued a .purchasing memorandum authorizing state agencies to procure products and services under the GSA’s “Schedule 70,” which covers information technology software. See id. ¶ 241; Florida State Purchasing Mem. No.- 2 (2005-06), Defi’s Attach. E, ECF No. 46-5. ■ Subsequently, Florida made purchases of Symantec products, and at-- least into 2011, Symantec failed to disclose !the fact that it offered larger discounts to commercial customers than it did for orders placed by Florida. See Omnibus' Compl. -¶¶ 241-42, 322. Symantec also used or allowed to be used certain records or statements in connection with claims-presented to Florida — including its initial disclosures to the GSA, applications to modify the Contract with the GSA, and certain “bills and GSA pricing information.” Id. ¶ 325. 3. New York' In November 2000, Veritas Software, which Symantec acquired between 2005 and 2006, executed a contract with New York for the-sale of software licenses.and services (“New York Cpntract”). See id. ¶¶ 54, 243. The New York Contract-based its pricing on Veritas’s, and later Symantec’s, “U.S. commercial price lists,” and extended to New York a 22.5% discount on software and a 5.5% discount on related services. See id. ¶243. The New York Contract also contained a price reduction clause that required Veritas, and later Symantec, to match price reductions extended to “its customers generally or to similarly situated government customers” and special offers or promotions “generally offer[ed] ... to other customers .,. for a similar quantity.” Id. In 2006, Veritas assigned the New York Contract to Symantec, which certified that it would maintain the pricing terms. See id. ¶ 244. During the life of the New York Contract, which expired in November 2010; Veritas and Symantec offered to similarly situated commercial customers more favorable pricing than that enjoyed by New York. See id.'¶¶ 245-47. D. Procedural History Lori Morsell has been a Symantec employee since March 2011. See id. ¶ 24. After joining the company, she managed the GSA Contract and relations with business partners that sold Symantec products under .their own MAS contracts. Id. In this capacity, she became aware of the above-described conduct and attempted unsuccessfully to change Symantec’s practices. See id. ¶¶172,174-75. In May 2012, Morsell, as Relator on behalf of the United States, filed her initial complaint against Symantec. See generally Compl., ECF No. 1. Subsequently, the United States and the States of California and Florida elected to intervene. See ECF Nos. 21, 28, 29. Although the State of New York declined to intervene, see ECF No. 27,’ Relator elected to proceed on its behalf, see ECF No. 40; see also 13 N.Y.C.R.R. :§ 400.4(c)(1). In October 2014, the United States, California, Florida, and Relator on behalf of New York filed their joint Omnibus Complaint, which superseded all previous ■ complaints. See Omnibus Compl. 1. In the Omnibus Complaint, the United States brings several claims against Symantec under the federal False Claims Act, 31 -U.S'.'C. §§ 3729 et seq. (“FCA”). Count I alleges that Symantec knowingly presented false claims, in violation of § 3729(a)(1)(A). See Omnibus Compl. ¶¶ 248-55. Count II alleges that Symantec knowingly made false statements material to its false ^¡claims, in violation of § 3729(a)(1)(B). See id. ¶¶ 256-62. In Count III, the United States contends that Symantec caused certain independent resellers to present false claims, in violation of § 3729(a)(1)(A). See id. ¶¶ 263-71. Count IV alleges that Symantec caused independent resellers to, make false statements material to false claims, in violation of § 3729(a)(1)(B). See id. ¶¶ 272-79. Lastly, Count V alleges that Symantec concealed its obligations to the United States, in violation of § 3729(a)(1)(G). See id. ¶¶ 280-85. Additionally, the United States asserts against Symantec a series of common-law claims — negligent misrepresentation, id. ¶¶ 286-91 (Count VI), breach of contract, id. ¶¶ 292-97 (Count VII), unjust enrichment, id. ¶¶ 298-300 (Count VIII), and payment by mistake, id. ¶¶ 301-OS (Count IX). California, Florida, and Relator on behalf of New York each allege that Symantec violated their respective state false claims statutes. See id. ¶¶ 304-39 (Counts X-XVI). By way of relief, the United States, California, Florida, and New York (through Relator) each seek damages, treble damages, and civil penalties under the statutes applicable to their claims. See id. at 77-78. Relator seeks’ a share of the recoveries of the United States and the States under the respective federal and state statutes. See id. at 78. „ Symantec subsequently moved to dismiss the Omnibus Complaint in its entirety. See Mot. Dismiss, ECF No. 46. The United States then moved for partial summary judgment on certain elements of its FCA and contractual claims. See U.S. Mot. .Partial Summ. J., ECF No. 54. Both motions are now fully briefed. III. LEGAL STANDARDS A. Rule 12(b)(6) The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that a complaint contain “a short and plain statement of the claim” in order to give the defendant fair notice of the claim and the grounds upon which it rests. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2); accord Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93, 127 S.Ct. 2197, 167 L.Ed.2d 1081 (2007) (per curiam). A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) does not test a -plaintiffs ultimate likelihood of success on the merits; rather, it tests whether a plaintiff has properly stated a claim. See Seheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236, 94 S.Ct. 1683, 40 L.Ed.2d 90 (1974). A court considering such a pjotion presumes that the-eomplaint’s factual allegations are true and construes them liberally in the plaintiffs favor. See, e.g., United States v. Philip Morris, Inc., 116 F.Supp.2d 181, 135 (D.D.C.2000). Nevertheless, “[t]o survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain' sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is-plausible on its face.’ ” Ashcroft u- Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678,129 S.Ct. 1937,173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007)). This means-that .a plaintiffs factual allegations “must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level, on the assumption that all the < allegations in the complaint are true (even if doubtful in fact).” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555-56, 127 S.Ct. 1955 (citations omitted). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements,” are therefore insufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937. A court need not accept a plaintiffs legal conclusions as true, see id, nor must a-court presume the veracity of legal conclusions that are couched as factual allegations, see Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955. B. Rule 9(b) Plaintiffs bringing claims under the FCA must satisfy the additional pleading requirements of Rule 9(b). See United States ex rel. Totten v. Bombardier Corp., 286 F.3d 542, 551-52 (D.C.Cir.2002). , Rule 9(b) provides that “[i]n alleging fraud or mistake, a party must state with particularity the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b). However, “[m]alice, intent, knowledge, and other conditions of a person’s mind may be alleged generally.” Id. Reading Rule 9(b) together with Rule 8’s requirement that allegations be “short and plain,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), the D.C. Circuit has required plaintiffs to “state the time, place and content of the .false misrepresentations, the fact misrepresented and what was retained or given up as a consequence of the fraud,” and to “identify individuals allegedly involved in the fraud,” United States ex rel. Williams v. Martm-Baker Aircraft Co., Ltd., 389 F.3d 1251, 1256 (D.C.Cir.2004) (citation omitted). C. Rule 56 A court may grant summary judgment when “the' movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). ' A party moving for summary judgment bears the “initial responsibility” of demonstrating “the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). In determining whether a genuine issue exists,-a-court must refrain from making credibility determinations or weighing the evidence; rather, “[t]he Evidence of the non-movant is to be believed, and all justifiable inferences áre to be drawn in his favor.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). IV. SYMANTEC’S MOTION TO DISMISS In its motion to dismiss, Symantec proffers a range of reasons why the Omnibus Complaint’s allegations are deficient. As to all of the-Government’s FCA claims, the Court denies the motion to dismiss. See infra Part IV.A. Because California, Florida, and Relator on behalf of New York have failed to state claims under • their respective state1 statutes, the Court dismisses their claims but grants them leave to amend their allegations. See infra Part IV.B. Lastly, the Court denies the motion to dismiss as to the Government’s negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and payment by mistake claims. See infra Part IV.C, IV.D. A. United States’ FCA Claims In Counts I through V, the United States (the “Government”) asserts several claims against Symantec under the FCA. See Omnibus Compl. ¶¶ 248-85. Originally enacted during the Civil War to combat unscrupulous government contractors, the FCA enables a qui tam plaintiff, known as a Relator, to initiate a civil action on behalf of the United States to recover monies paid on account of false or fraudulent claims. See 31 U.S.C, § 3730; United States v. Kellogg Brown & Root.Servs., Inc., 800 F.Supp.2d 143, .146-47 (D.D.C. 2011). As pertinent to this case, the- FCA, as amended, creates liability for “any person who ... knowingly presents, or causes to be presented, a false or fraudulent claim for payment or approval,” 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1)(A); “knowingly makes, uses, or causes to be made or used, a false record ,or statement material to a false or fraudulent claim,” id. § 3729(a)(1)(B); or “knowingly conceals or knowingly and improperly avoids or decreases an obligation to pay or transmit money or property to the Government,” id. § 3729(a)(1)(G). 1. Presenting or Causing to Be Presented False Claims (Counts I and III) In Count I, the Government alleges that Symantec knowingly presented false claims for payment under the Contract, in violation of 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1)(A). See Omnibus Compl. ¶¶ 248-55. In Count III, the Government contends that Symantec caused its independent resellers to make false claims by allowing the resellers to use'the false disclosures that it used in its own negotiations with the GSA, in violation of the same FCA provision. See id. ¶¶ 263-71. Section 3729(a)(1)(A) creates liability for “any person who ... knowingly presents, or causes to be presented, a false or fraudulent claim for payment or approval.” 31. U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1)(A). Claims under this FCA provision are known as “presentment” claims. See United States ex rel. Tran v. Computer Scis. Corp., 53 F.Supp.3d 104, 117 (D.D.C.2014). The elements of presentment claims arfe that: “(1) the defendant submitted or caused to be submitted a claim to the government, (2) the claim was false, and (3) the defendant knew the claim was false.” See id. at 121-22 (citation and alteration omitted). In the case of the “paradigmatic ... factually false claim,” a claimant “submits information that is untrue on its face.” Kellogg Brown & Root Servs., 800 F.Supp.2d at 154 (citation omitted). But a claim need not be facially false to trigger liability under § 3729(a)(1)(A). See United States ex rel. Hendow v. Univ. of Phoenix, 461 F.3d 1166, 1170 (9th Cir.2006). Rather, courts have developed two theories of'legal “falsity” — the. implied certification theory and the fraudulent inducement theory. See id. at 1170-74; Harrison v. Westinghouse Savannah River Co., 176 F.3d 776, 786-88 (4th Cir.1999) (reviewing theories). As the Court explains below, Count I survives Symantec’s motion to dismiss under either the implied certification or fraudulent inducement theory. See .infra Part IV.A.l.a. The Court also denies the motion to dismiss Count III given Symantec’s failure to address two elements of this indirect presentment claim — causation and false claims. See infra Part IV.A.Lb. a. Presentment Claim (Count I) Although the motion to dismiss is -hardly a model of clarity, to the extent that- Symantec seeks dismissal of the presentment claim in Count I under both-the implied certification and fraudulent inducement theories, the Court rejects Symantec’s arguments as to. both theories. The implied certification theory proceeds from the premise that a defendant can be liable under § 3729(a)(1)(A) for presenting a claim for payment that “rests on a false representation of compliance with an applicable federal statute, federal regulation, or contractual term.” United States v. Sci. Applications Int’l Corp., 626 F.3d 1257, 1266 (D.C.Cir.2010) (“SAIC ”). Certifications need not be express; under the implied certification theory, a party can incur liability-for making claims under a contract while “withh[olding] information about its noncompliance with material contractual requirements.” Id. at 1269. Courts applying the implied certification theory still must ensure that claims satisfy both materiality and knowledge requirements. A plaintiff must establish that the breached legal requirement was “a material condition of the contract” or regulation under which the defendant made its claim for payment. M; see also id. at 1271 (explaining that the plaintiff- must establish that “compliance with the legal requirement ill question is material to the government’s decision to pay”). ’While the “existence of express'@ contractual language specifically linking compliance to eligibility for payment may well constitute dispositive evidence of materiality,” such language is not a “necessary condition” for liability under the implied certification . theory. Id. .at 1269. Likewise, the knowledge requirement helps,“ensure that ordinary breaches of contract are not converted into FCA liability.” Id. at 1271. The requisite knowledge has two dimensions: The plaintiff must, show that the defendant “knows (1) that it violated a contractual obligation, and (2) that its compliance with that obligation was material to the government’s decision to pay.” Id.; see also United States ex rel Heath v. AT & T, 791 F.3d 112, 125 (D.C.Cir.2015) (explaining that plaintiff alleged that defendant “knew that compliance was a material and express condition for reimbursement”). The Government has adequately alleged each element of its presentment claim under the implied certification theory. The Omnibus i Complaint alleges that when making claims for payment under the Contract, Symantec impliedly certified that its pricing continued to comply with the Price .Reduction Clause. See id. ¶¶ 250-51; see also 48 C.F.R. § 552.238-75(a)-(c), (f), (g). But according to the Omnibus Complaint, these implied certifications were false: Symantec routinely failed to disclose more favorable pricing extended to similarly situated commercial customers and to,adjust the Government’s pricing accordingly. See Omnibus Compl. ¶¶ 135-60. As for materiality, given that the central goal of the MAS program is allegedly to ensure that the Government receives a reasonable ■ price for products and services,, the Omnibus Complaint’supports a plausible inference that compliance with the Price Reduction Clause by maintaining-the agreed-upon “discount relationship” with commercial customers is “material to the government’s decision to pay.” SAIC, 626 F.3d at 1271; see also Omnibus Compl. ¶¶ 31-47, 94; 48 C.F.R. §§ 538.270, 552.238-75(a); cf. United States v. Triple Canopy, Inc., 775 F.3d 628, 637-38 (4th Cir.2015) (reversing dismissal of implied certification presentment claim and concluding that materiality was adequately alleged where “common sense strongly suggests that the- Government’s decision to pay a contractor for providing base security in an active combat zone would be influenced by knowledge that the guards could not,: for lack of a better term, ’ shoot straight”). Lastly, because knowledge “may be alleged generally” at this stage in the litigation, Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b), the Government’s general. allegation suffices, see Omnibus Compl. ¶ 253 (“Symantec ... had actual knowledge that [its] claims were false-or acted with deliberate ignorance or reckless disregard as to them falsity... ,”). Under the fraudulent inducement theory, liability attaches under § 3729(a)(1)(A) “for each claim submitted to the Government under a contract which was procured by fraud, even in the absence of evidence that the claims were fraudulent in themselves.” United States ex rel. Bettis v. Odebreeht Contraetors of Cal., Inc., 393 F.3d 1321, 1326 (D.C.Cir.2005) (applying theory to “claims” under pre-FERA FCA). Congress expressly recognized this theory when it amended the FCA in 1986, explaining that “each and every claim • submitted under a contract ... which was originally obtained by means of false statements or other corrupt or fraudulent conduct, or in violation of any statute or applicable regulation, constitutes a false claim.” Id. (quoting S.Rep. No. 99-345, at 9 (1986)). The Court has doubts as to whether the Government can press its presentment claim under the fraudulent inducement theory given an. inconsistency in the way courts have described, what this .theory requires. . In Bettis, the D.C. Circuit ex? plained that the theory applies where a contract was “procured by fraud,” suggesting a causal link between the defendant’s fraud and the contract’s formation. Bettis, 393 F.3d at 1326; see also Tran, 53 F.Supp.3d at 130. By contrast, , other courts have held that the fraudulent inducement theory requires that “a party mak[e] promises at the time of contracting that it intends to break.” United States. ex rel. Head v. Kane Co., 798 F.Supp.2d 186, 196 (D.D.C.2011) (emphasis added); see also United States ex rel. Frascella v. Oracle Corp., 751 F.Supp.2d 842, 855 (E.D.Va.2010). Although the Omnibus Complaint’s allegations readily support an inference of causation or reliance, the Government does not appear to allege that Symantec had any intent to break its promises.. See Omnibus Compl.-¶ 253 (alleging “knowledge” of the claims’ falsity or “deliberate ignorance or reckless disregard as to- their falsity”). The Court, however, need not resolve this inconsistency in the fraudulent inducement theory jurisprudence because Symantec does not invoke the “intent” formulation of that theory — or any formulation, for that matter. Given that Symantec bears the burden to demonstrate that the Government has failed to state a claim, its deficient briefing provides a sufficient basis for denying its motion as-to the fraudulent inducement theory. See Intelsat USA Sales Corp. v. Juch-Tech, Inc., - 24 F.Supp.3d 32, 48 n.10 (D.D.C.2014) (“All federal courts are in agreement that the burden is on the moving party in a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to prove that no legally cognizable claim for relief exists[.]” (alterations and citation omitted)). For the foregoing reasons, the Court denies the motion to dismiss as to Count I under the implied certification and fraudulent inducement theories. b. Indirect Presentment Claim (Count III) In Count III, the Government alleges that Symantec caused its resellers to submit false claims by providing the resellers with the “false information Symantec provided GSA during negotiation of the Contract” that in turn inflated pricing for Symantec products under the resellers’ own MAS contracts. See Omnibus Compl. ¶¶ 263-71. Count III asserts an indirect presentment claim under § 3729(a)(1)(A). The elements of such claims are that: “(1) the defendant ,.. caused to be submitted a claim to the government, (2) the claim was false, and (3) the defendant knew the claim was false.” See Tran> 53 F.Supp.3d at 121-22 (citation and alteration omitted). As with Count I, knowledge is adequately-alleged. See Omnibus Compl. ¶¶ 268-69. Accordingly, the remaining elements that the Government must plead to support Count III are causation and false claims. The Court declines to dismiss. Count III. First, Symantec’s motion contains no .discussion of whether the Omnibus Complaint sufficiently alleges a causal link between Symantec’s actions and its reseller’s claims. See United States v. Toyobo Co., 811 F.Supp.2d 37, 48 (D.D.C.2011) (“For a plaintiff to allege a cause of action under § 3729(a)(l)’s ‘causes to be presented’ prong, it must allege that the defendant’s conduct was ‘at least a substantial factor in causing, if not the but-for cause of, submission of false claims.’ ” (citation omitted)). As for falsity, Symantec devotes much attention in its briefing to why the Omnibus Complaint’s allegations cannot support an inference that its own claims were false, but nowhere does Symantec make the same argument with respect to its resellers’ claims. Compare Mot. Dismiss 3, .16 (contending that Count III must be dismissed for failure to allege that Symantec caused or induced the “Contracting Officer to accept Symantec’s offer” (emphasis added)), with Omnibus Compl. ¶¶ 263-71 (alleging that resellers ’ claims were inflated). Given Symantec’s deficient briefing, the Court denies the motion as to Count III. 2. Making or Causing Resellers to Make False Statements Material to False Claims (Counts II and IV) In Count II, the Government alleges that Symantec knowingly made false records or statements material- to false claims, in violation of 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1)(B). See Omnibus Compl. ¶¶ 256-62. In Count IV, the Government alleges that Symantec knowingly caused its resellers to make false records - or statements material to false claims, in violation of the same FCA provision. See id. ¶¶ 272-79. Section 3729(a)(1)(B) establishes liability for any person who “knowingly makes, uses, or causes to be made or used, a false record or statement material to a false or fraudulent claim.” 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1)(B). To state such a “false statements” claim, “a plaintiff must allege that (1) the defendant made or used [or caused to be made or used] a ‘record or statement;’ (2) the record or statement was false; (3) the defendant knew it was false; and (4) the record or statement was ‘material’ to a false or fraudulent claim.” United States ex rel. Hood v. Satory Global, Inc., 946 F.Supp.2d 69, 85 (D.D.C.2013). The false statements provision is “designed to prevent those who make false records or statements ... from escaping liability solely on the ground that they did not themselves present a claim for payment or approval.” Totten v. Bombardier Corp., 380 F.3d 488, 501 (D.C.Cir.2004). As amended by FERA, the FCA defines “material” to mean “having a natural tendency to influence, or be capable'of influencing, the payment or receipt of money or property.” 31 U.S.C. § 3729(b)(4). The D.C. Circuit has concluded that a causal link between the false statement and false claim would suffice >to satisfy this standard. See Heath, 791 F.3d at 124-25 (finding sufficient, under the implied certification theory, the allegation that had government-appointed fund administrator known, of noncompliance, it would not have made payments). But actual causation is not necessary to establish FCA liability. In applying the identical definition of “material” under a criminal statute, the D.C. Circuit concluded"that “the question of materiality is not to be answered by reference only to the specific circumstances of the case at hand.” United States v. Moore, 612 F.3d 698, 701 (D.C.Cir.2010) (applying materiality'"standard under 18 U.S.C. § 1001). That is, “a statement need not actually influence [the government] in order to be material.” Id., see also U.S. ex rel. Feldman v. van Gorp, 697 F.3d 78, 95 (2d Cir.2012) (interpreting FCA materiality test as “objective” and not requiring proof of actual reliance). Put differently, “[a] statement or omission is ‘capable of influencing’ a decision even if those who make the decision are negligent and fail to appreciate the statement’s significance.” United States v. Rogan, 517 F.3d 449, 452 (7th Cir.2008) (interpreting materiality under FCA); accord Feldman, 697 F.3d at 95. : In ‘ seeking • the dismissal of Counts II and IV, Symantec contends that the Omnibus Complaint fails to allege that the company made or caused its resellers to make any “false” records or statements, that the company acted “knowingly,” and that such statements, even if knowingly false, were “material” .to a false claim. See Mot. Dismiss 14-19; Hood, 946 F.Supp.2d at 85. At , most, in Symantec’s view, the facts alleged represent the sometimes messy “give and take of contract negotiations,” and that “the more plausible interpretation” is that Symantec acted “in good faith.” Mot. Dismiss 16. For the reasons given below, the Court concludes that the Omnibus Complaint’s allegations are sufficient as to all of the records .or statements at issue. First, the Omnibus Complaint sufficiently alleges the falsity of numerous records or statements concerning discounting practices that Symantec used or caused its resellers to use. In response to Question 4(b) of the initial MAS contract solicitation, which asked whether “any deviations” from Symantec’s disclosed policies and practices “ever result in better discounts (lower prices) or concessions than indicated,” Symantec answered “NO,”' when in fact deviations did enable Symantec to extend discounts on a more frequent and flexible basis than indicated. Omnibus Compl. ¶ 59; CSPs, Def.’s Attach. A. As for the Frequency Chart, the Government alleges that the inclusion of numerous published discounts understated the frequency of discounts exceeding 40%. See Omnibus Compl. ¶¶ 101,-102. Symantec averred in the Final Proposal Revision to the Contract that it had disclosed in up-to-date, accurate form “all commercial business practices” and certified that the Government’s discounts and pricing are “equal to and/or greater than what is granted to any commercial and/or Government customer under similar terms and condition's.” Id. T94. But these statements were allegedly false because Symantec misrepresented comparative pricing among ■ its standard buying programs, id. ¶¶ 75-77, failed to disclose the full terms of its Rewards buying program (and their generous, flexible exceptions) and rebate policies, see id. ¶¶ 78-80, 83, 92, 115-18, 123-26, and failed to explain that the GSA’s 16% discount off of “Commercial MSRP” was actually a discount off of only the Express program pricelist, see id. ¶ 88. Lastly, the Omnibus Complaint alleges that when requesting various modifications to the Contract, Symantec repeatedly certified to the GSA that its previously disclosed commercial sales practices “ha[d] not changed,” when in fact those initial disclosures were false from the start. 'Id. ¶¶ 182-83. The Omnibus Complaint also plausibly alleges falsi,ty as to records or statements concerning Symantec’s discount controls— the Reason Code Chart, the Management Approval Chart, and Symantec’s‘statement that “[a]ny deviations from published discounts require management approval.” Id. ¶ 90. According to the Omnibus Complaint, although the two charts purported to provide data for all non-published discounts in 2005, they actually reflected only those non-published discounts approved through Symantec’s eSPA system, see id. ¶81, and in 2005, over 9,000 commercial orders were not processed through that system, see id. ¶ 99. Additionally, the fact that several large non-published discounts received no management approval at all renders false both the Management Approval Chart and Symantec’s statement that all non-published discounts required such approval. See id. ¶ 90. . Second, the Omnibus Complaint adequately alleges that each of these 'false records or statements was “material” to Symantec’s false claims. Because the GSA contracting officer must reach decisions by “comparting] the terms and conditions of the [offeror’s response to the] MAS solicitation with the terms and conditions of agreements with the offeror’s commercial customers,” 48 C.F.R. § 538.270(c), the records or statements bearing on Symantec’s pricing and discount practices have the potential to impact a GSA contracting officer’s ability to “seek to obtain the offer- or’s best price,” id. § 538.270(a); see also Shemesh I v. CA, Inc. 89 F.Supp.3d 36, 80-81, 2015 WL 1446547, at *9 (D.D.C. Mar. 31, 2015) (“Considering that the pricelist was the basis for the negotiated price, defendant’s argument that misrepresenting CA’s pricelist is immaterial to the government’s decision to pay a certain contract price is puzzling at best.”). Accordingly, each false record or statement has “a natural tendency to influence,” or is “capable of influencing, the payment or receipt of money.” 31 U.S.C. § 3729(b)(4); see also Feldman, 697 F.3d at 95. Likewise, 'the Omnibus Complaint sufficiently alleges that the inaccuracies in the records or statements concerning Symantec’s discount controls were “material” to false claims. To be sure, as Symantec emphasizes, the Government does hot allege that discount controls were‘expressly required@ by the Contract or applicable regulations, or that the GSA inquired into the robustness of such systems. But the Omnibus Complaint does allege that the Price Reduction Clause obligated Symantec to monitor its discounting, practices closely. See Omnibus Compl. ¶¶ 48-52. Given that the Government plainly would be reluctant to contract with a party unable to comply with contractual terms, the Omnibus Complaint permits a plausible inference that the inaccurate representations concerning Symantec’s discount controls could have “a natural tendency to influence, or be capable of influencing” the GSA’s decision. 31 U.S.C. § 3729(b)(4); cf. SAIG, 626 F.3d at 1269 (explaining under implied certification theory that evidence of parties’ mutual understanding that “payment was conditional on compliance” could suffice to establish materiality of contractual provision). Because the Omnibus Complaint, adequately alleges that Symantec knowingly used or caused to be used records or state: ments that were false and material to false claims, the Court denies the motion to dismiss Counts II and IV. 3. Concealing Obligations (Count V) Count Y alleges that Symantec concealed its obligations to the United States, in violation of 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1)(G). See Omnibus Compl. .¶¶ 280-85. • Section 3729(d)(1)(G) establishes a cause of action for “reverse” false Claims, creating liability for any person who “knowingly conceals - or knowingly and ‘ improperly avoids or decreases an obligation to pay or transmit money or property to the Government.” 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1)(G); see also Si v. Laogai Research Found., 71 F.Supp.3d 73, 88 (D.D.C.2014). “Obligation” is defined broadly to mean “an established duty, whether or ■ not fixed, arising from an express of implied contractual, grantor-grantee, or licensor-licensee relationship, from a fee-based or similar relationship, from statute or regulation, or from the retention of any overpayment.” 31 ■ U.S.C. § 3729(b)(3); see also S% 71 F.Supp.3d at 89 (explaining that FERA added this broad definition of “obligation” to reject the narrower interpretation that certain- courts had adopted). The Government has plausibly alleged liability for a “reverse” false claim, on the basis that Symantec knowingly failed to adjust the Contract’s pricing terms as required by the Price Reduction Clause, The Complaint alleges that internal audits in 2010 and 2011 put Symantec executives on notice that the company’s undisciplined discounting practices could have led to violations of its Price Reduction Clause commitments. See Omnibus Compl. ¶¶ 165, 281. Nonetheless, Symantec allegedly concealed this knowledge and shirked its contractual duties to disclose violations and to adjust the Government’s pricing upon any triggering price reduction. See id. ¶¶ 282-83; see also 48 C.F.R. § 552.238-75(a)-(c). In sum, the Omnibus Complaint adequately .alleges that Symantec “knowingly concealed] or knowingly and improperly avoid[ed]” an “obligation to pay or transmit money” to the Government “arising from an express ..¡ contractual ... relationship, ... or from the retention of any overpayment.” 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729(a)(1)(G), 3729(b)(3). Accordingly, the Court denies, Symantec’s motion to dismiss Count V. B. State-Law Claims In Counts X through XVI, California, Florida, and Relator on behalf of New York each allege, that Symantec violated their respective state false claims statutes. See Omnibus Compl. ¶¶ 304-39. Symantec has moved to dismiss all of these claims. See Mot. Dismiss 39-43. The Court concludes that California, Florida, and Relator have failed to state any claims. These plaintiffs each imply in cursory fashion that Symantec’s alleged fraud against them is a consequence of the company’s fraud against the GSA without sufficient factual allegations 'that support such a connection. Accordingly, the Court grants the motion to dismiss all of the state-law claims. .The Court also, however, sua sponte grants California, Florida, and Relator leave to amend their respective portions of the Omnibus Complaint. Cf. Jones v. Horne, 634 F.3d 588, 603 n. 7 (D.C.Cir.2011) (holding that under general rule that leave to amend is granted only upon motion, a district court did not.abuse its discretion in failing sua sponte -to grant such leave). Should they opt to file amendments, California, Florida, and Relator are encouraged to flesh out their allegations and to tie them more precisely to the elements of liability under their respective state statutes. See supra Part IV.A.1, A.2 (discussing elements of federal FCA presentment and false statements claims). Below, the Court elaborates on some of the specific ways in which each of the state-law claims falls short, as identified by Symantec’s, motion. 1. California In Count X, California asserts that Symahtec knowingly caused its independent resellers to make false claims under CMAS and SLP contracts by providing false information that it knew the resellers and DGS would use in negotiating the CMAS and SLP contracts, in violation of the California False Claims Act (“CFCA”), Cal. Gov’t Code § 12651(a)(1). See Omnibus Compl. ¶¶ 304-12. Based' on the same facts, in Count XI, California alleges that Symantec knowingly caused its resellers to use false statements material to their false claims under CMAS and SLP contracts, in violation of the CFCA, Cal. Gov’t Code § 12651(a)(2). See id. ¶¶ 313-20. The CFCA creates liability for “[a]ny person who ... (1) [kjnowingly presents or causes to be presented a false or fraudulent claim for payment or approval ... [or] (2) [k]nowingly makes, uses, or causes to be made or used a false record or statement material to a false or fraudulent claim.” Cal. Gov’t Code § 12651(a)(1), (2). Because the CFCA was patterned after the federal FCA, federal decisions are “persuasive authority” in adjudicating CFCA claims. See United States v. Shasta Servs., Inc., 440 F.Supp.2d 1108, 1111 (E.D.Cal.2006). ■ With respect to both the CMAS and SLP contracts, California has failed-to state either a presentment or false ’statements claim. As to the presentment claim, California alleges only that Symantec authorized its resellers to respond to CMAS solicitations and that .the CMAS contracts ultimately incorporated the pricing and terms of the GSA Contract. .See Omnibus Compl. ¶¶220, 222. Similarly, with, respect to the SLP contracts, the Omnibus Complaint alleges that Symantec submitted an SLP Letter of Offer to DGS to supply Symantec products through its resellers at discounts mirroring those enjoyed by the GSA under the GSA Contract and that the resellers ultimately sold Symantec products to state agencies under SLP contracts with'the same pricing and terms as the GSA Contract. See id. ¶¶ 223-37. Lacking^ however, is any allegation that Symantec had' the requisite scienter — that it “knowingly” caused its resellers to present falseclaims. Cal. Gov’t Code § 12651(a)(1). Indeed, there ’is no allegation that Symantec knew the precise pricing and terms that its resellers would offer in response to the CMAS or SLP solicitations or knew that it was causing the resellers to submit “false” claims .(under any theory of falsity). See Mot. Dismiss 39-40; cf. Tran, 53 F.Supp.3d at 121-22 (setting forth elements of federal FCA indirect presentment claim as: “(1) the defendant ... caused to be submitted a claim to the government, (2) the claim was false, and (3) the defendant knew the claim was false.” (emphasis added) (citation and alteration omitted)). As for the CFCA false statements claim, there is similarly no allegation that Symantec had knowledge that its initial disclosures were (or would be) material to its resellers’ claims under the CMAS or SLP contracts; Symantec’s alleged knowledge of the materiality of. false records or statements related to its dealings with the GSA cannot support an inference that -Symantec had any knowledge -that - those false records or statements would- be material to its -reseller’s dealings with California. See supra note 15. ’ Accordingly, the Court dismisses Counts X and XI of the Omnibus Complaint as to both the CMAS and SLP contracts. 2. Florida In Count XII, Florida asserts that Symantec presented the state with false claims, in violation of the Florida False Claims Act, Fla. Stat. § 68.082(2)(a) (“FFCA”). See Omnibus Compl. ¶¶ 321-23. In Count XIII, Florida alleges that Symantec made or used, or caused to be made or used, false records or statements material to false claims, in violation of the FFCA, Fla. Stat. § 68.082(2)(b). See id. ¶¶ 324-26. The Court concludes that Florida’s allegations do not state any-claims under the FFCA. - The FFCA creates liability for “[a]riy person who ... (a) [k]nowingly presents or causes to be presented a false or fraudulent claim for payment or approval ... [or] (b) [k]nowingly makes, uses, Or causes 'to be made or used a false record Or statement material to a false or fraudulent claim.” Fla. Stat. § 68.082(2)(a), (b). The definitions of “knowingly” and “material” are consistent with those of the federal FCA, see id. § 68.082(l)(c), (d), and the standards for FFCA liability mirror those under the federal FCA, see United States ex rel. Schubert v. All Children’s Health Sys., Inc., No. 8:11-CV-01687-T-27, 2013 WL 6054803, at *7 n. 8 (M.D.Fla. Nov. 15, 2013). ' The Court concludes that Florida’s FFCA claims must be dismissed. Florida’s claims rest on the purchasing memorandum issued by a state agency in 2006. See Florida State Purchasing-Mem. No. 2 (2005-06), Def.’s Attach. E. But as Symantec explains, this internal memorandum does not mention Symantec or establish that any “legal obligation” between Florida and Symantec existed. See Mot. Dismiss 42. Nor is the conclusory allegation that Symantec submitted “bills and GSA pricing information” sufficient. Omnibus Compl., ¶ 325. At bottom, Florida has failed to allege the existence of any “claims” — let alone “false claims.” And without alleged false claims, Florida cannot maintain presentment or false statements claims under the FFCA, Because Florida has failed to plead plausible claims under the FFCA, the Court dismisses Counts XII and XIII of the Omnibus Complaint. 3. New York Relator on behalf of New York asserts in Counts XIV and XV that Symantec presented false claims under various contracts, see Omnibus Compl. ¶¶ 327-35, and in Count XVI that Symantec made and used, or caused to be made and used, false records and statements material to false claims, all in violation of the New York False Claims Act, N.Y. St. Fin. Law ’§ 189(l)(a), (b) (“NYFCA”), see id. ¶¶336-39. The NYFCA establishes penalties for “any person who ... (a) knowingly presents, or causes to be presented a false or fraudulent claim for payment or approval .,. [or] (b) knowingly makes, uses, or causes to be made or used, a false record oi’ statement material to a false or fraudulent claim.” N.Y. St. Fin. Law § 189(l)(a), (b). “The -NYFCA follows the federal [FCA] and therefore it is appropriate to look toward federal law when interpreting the New York act.” State of New York ex rel. Seiden v. Utica First Ins. Co., 96 A.D.3d 67, 71, 943 N.Y.S.2d 36 (N.Y.App. Div.2012). The Court concludes that New York has not plausibly pleaded falsity of any claims — whether facial or legal. See SAIC, 626 F.3d at 1266; Mot. Dismiss 42 (contending that Omnibus Complaint fails to allege any “overpriced” claims). Although the Omnibus Complaint alleges that the New York Contract provided discounts ranging between-22.5% and 5.5%, as Symantec explains, there is no allegation of any linkage to the GSA Contract or of any wrongdoing. See Mot. Dismiss-42. In opposition, New York explains that because its ' discounts were generally less than the GSA’s discounts ranging between 35% and 5%, the numerous commercial customers that allegedly received larger discounts than the GSA’s necessarily received better pricing than New York did. See States’ Opp’n 10. The problem with this theory, as Symantec explains in reply, is that the Omnibus Complaint does not allege that the New York Contract and the GSA Contract shared, the same discount baseline: The New York Contract discounts were allegedly based on “U.S. com.mercial price lists,” Omnibus Compl. ¶ 243, while the GSA Contract discounts were allegedly based on Symantec’s Express program pricelist, see id. ¶ 88; Def.’s Reply to States 9, ECF No. 53, and the Omnibus Complaint does not allege that the two are identical. Accordingly, the Omnibus Complaint fails to allege any false claims, and without false claims, New York’s false statements claim also must fail. See N.Y. St. Fin. Law § 189(l)(b) (creating liability for using or causing to be used