SBA Analytics Initiative May Accelerate Pandemic-Era Relief Fraud Enforcement

The Small Business Administration (SBA) recently announced that it would be expanding its use of “Palantir Technologies software to advance [agency] efforts to identify […] and help prosecute fraud in pandemic-era small business relief programs,” such as the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP). The July 2026 announcement describes the initiative as “formaliz[ing] the Fraud Prevention Pilot Program that the agency launched earlier this year with Palantir software, using advanced technology and artificial intelligence [AI] to surface data and leads, support criminal enforcement, and assist in the recovery of funds for American taxpayers.”

The announcement coincides with a broader US government push to harness data analytics to identify potential fraud involving government programs and signals a potential wave of False Claims Act (FCA) enforcement involving pandemic-era programs, which has been an area of increased focus in recent years.

DOJ’s Steady Pipeline of PPP Enforcement

The PPP was administered from April 2020 to May 2021 by the SBA, which released several iterations of rules and guidance for potential borrowers to assess loan funding and forgiveness eligibility. Certain rules and guidance tied directly to preexisting SBA statutory requirements, while other rules and guidance were specific to the PPP. Requirements concerning loan eligibility included meeting corporate size standards measured by employee head count, revenue, or maximum tangible net worth; appropriately accounting for corporate affiliates; accurately calculating payroll costs; certifying that economic uncertainty made the loan request necessary to support ongoing operations; and other requirements. Generally, to apply for loan forgiveness, borrowers needed to submit documentation verifying the number of full-time equivalent employees and pay rates and certify that loan proceeds were used for eligible expenses, among other requirements.

While the SBA’s announcement reflects an intent to further accelerate “efforts to identify, investigate, and help prosecute fraud in pandemic-era small business relief programs,” such efforts have been a consistent focus of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) in recent years. 

As early as 2020, DOJ has been steadily pursuing enforcement actions concerning PPP borrower fraud. Civilly, DOJ has pursued such actions under the FCA, which provides for statutory per-claim penalties and treble damages. Many settlements have related to allegations that companies were ineligible for the program based on corporate size, affiliation rules, foreign ownership, misstatements related to payroll expenses, or other misstatements made on the PPP loan and/or forgiveness applications. Such settlements have often applied a multiplier to the borrower’s original loan amount.

In its fiscal year 2025 FCA roundup, DOJ announced more than 200 pandemic-related FCA settlements and judgments exceeding $230 million. DOJ’s more recent announcements likewise reflect that it has been a busy year for investigating and resolving PPP-related cases. DOJ announced multiple settlements in such cases last month alone. For example, it announced a more than $3.5 million settlement with SoftBank Robotics America Inc., resolving allegations that the company was ineligible for a first draw PPP loan “because it exceeded the size standards when including affiliated entities.” The DOJ also announced a $4 million settlement with LS Cable & System USA Inc., resolving allegations that the company “misrepresented the number of its employees and affiliated personnel” to obtain PPP loan funds. And it announced a $2.6 million settlement with Rockland Congruity LLC, resolving allegations that the company obtained a second draw PPP loan for which it was ineligible because it was a subsidiary of a global company and had more than 300 employees when considering its affiliates.

In addition to DOJ’s own enforcement efforts, the SBA has administrative remedies at its disposal, including prohibiting borrowers from participating in SBA programs and receiving any future small business and disaster loans administered by the SBA. In its July 14, 2026, announcement, the SBA noted that, to date, it “has announced suspensions of over 150,000 pandemic borrowers.”

Data Analytics May Accelerate Pandemic-Era Relief Program Fraud Enforcement

DOJ’s FCA investigations often stem from complaints filed under seal by private qui tam relators. Many such relators are serial relators who have relied on publicly available PPP data to craft their complaints. Continuing advancements in analytic tools and AI provide both the government and such qui tam relators — including data miners — with more, and easier, opportunities to identify potential inaccuracies or inconsistencies in PPP loan applications at substantial scale and speed.

In addition to the SBA advancing its own data analytics capabilities, DOJ has recently invited data miners filing qui tam complaints more generally (not limited to PPP fraud) to contact DOJ to discuss the capabilities of their tools. On April 30, 2026, DOJ announced the new Fraud Oversight through Careful Use of Statistics (FOCUS) initiative, encouraging data miners with “sophisticated technological capabilities” to contact DOJ to “outline why and how their data signals reliably correlate to fraud.”

DOJ’s recent invitation to have an open dialogue with sophisticated data miners, combined with the SBA’s implementation of its own data analytics software, may further accelerate enforcement efforts relating to pandemic-era relief.

Key Takeaways

Companies across industries that received pandemic-era relief should consider consulting with outside counsel and proactively evaluating their application materials and key correspondence to stress test eligibility, shore up available defense theories, and, if necessary, consider a voluntary repayment before the government potentially initiates its own investigation. Borrowers and lenders should also ensure they continue to retain all PPP-related documentation.

* * *

For more information on the issues discussed in this alert, please contact the authors; Goodwin’s Government Investigations, Enforcement & White Collar Defense and False Claims Act practices; or the Goodwin lawyer whom you typically consult.