Phil Mattera

The Other Wage Theft

When we hear references to wage theft, there is a tendency to think of low-paid workers being cheated by fly-by-night employers. That is only part of the story.

Wage and hour violations affecting better-paid white-collar workers are also common, and the employers involved are often household names. Their abuses typically consist of practices such as denying overtime pay to low-level supervisors by erroneously classifying them as managers.

The federal law governing workplace pay practices, the Fair Labor Standards Act, provides exemptions for bona fide executive, administrative and professional employees, who are typically paid a salary. Yet in order for the exemption to apply, the person must be paid above a certain level.

Unfortunately, that threshold has not been adequately updated and is today only $35,000 annually. As a result, many first-line supervisors and similar employees with quite modest salaries end up working many extra hours without additional compensation.

A new proposal from the U.S. Labor Department would alleviate the situation by raising the threshold to about $55,000 a year. Yet this would not completely solve the problem.

Some employers will flout the new standard the way they did with the old one. In fact, the higher threshold will probably tempt even more companies to cheat. Along with the new threshold, the Labor Department needs to put more emphasis on enforcement, especially at larger corporations.

In 2018 I wrote a report called Grand Theft Paycheck that analyzed the prevalence of wage theft in big business by looking both at DOL enforcement actions and private collective action lawsuits brought on behalf of groups of workers. The latter accounted for most of the penalties collected from large corporations.

During the past five years I have continued to document wage theft cases for Violation Tracker, and the trend continues. Here are some of the significant settlements since 2018 involving white-collar and professional workers:

Humana agreed to pay $11 million to settle allegations that it improperly treated nurses as exempt from overtime.

Wells Fargo agreed to pay over $10 million to settle allegations that it failed to pay home mortgage consultants proper commissions and incentive payments.

CVS Health agreed to pay over $10 million to resolve a lawsuit alleging it did not properly compensate pharmacists for time spent on company-mandated training.

Computer Sciences Corporation agreed to pay over $9 million for failing to pay overtime to system administrators.

Pharmaceutical company Baxalta agreed to pay over $4 million for failing to pay overtime to technicians.

Santander Bank agreed to pay over $4 million to settle litigation alleging it did not pay proper overtime compensation to branch operations managers.

Facebook agreed to pay $1.65 million to resolve a lawsuit claiming it improperly classified its client solutions managers as exempt from overtime pay.

All these cases were brought by plaintiffs’ lawyers, who provide an important service (while collecting a portion of the proceeds). It would be preferable, however, to see the Labor Department pursue more of these cases as well as the ones involving small businesses.

Wage theft comes in multiple forms. Regulators should be investigating them all.

Negotiating with Crooks

The pharmaceutical industry is indignant that the Biden Administration is actually moving ahead with plans to implement the provision of the Inflation Reduction Act that allows Medicare to negotiate drug prices. Responding to an announcement of the first ten medications that will be targeted, the trade association PhRMA complained about a “rushed process,” even though the law was passed a year ago and the negotiated prices will not become effective until 2026.

The industry is not just complaining—it is fighting the law in court and doing everything possible to retain its longstanding power to set prices at astronomical levels. The price-gouging is just part of the problem. Drugmakers also have an abysmal compliance record in their dealings with government healthcare programs.

Take the eleven companies which produce the medications included in the first round of negotiations: AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Johnson & Johnson, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk and Pfizer.

Over the past two decades, these companies and their subsidiaries have been penalized in more than 100 cases brought under the False Claims Act (FCA) or related laws relating to government contracting. As shown in Violation Tracker, they have paid a total of more than $5 billion in fines and settlements for overcharging federal agencies and others forms of fraud.

Six of the companies—AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Johnson & Johnson, Merck, Novartis and Pfizer–have each been involved in ten or more FCA cases, paying out enormous sums in penalties.

Pfizer, for example, has paid $1.15 billion in fines and settlements linked to 16 different FCA cases. The biggest of these was a $784 million payment by Pfizer and its subsidiary Wyeth to resolve allegations that Wyeth knowingly reported to the government false and fraudulent prices on two of its proton pump inhibitor drugs.

Novartis has paid $926 million to resolve a dozen different FCA cases. Among these is a $642 million settlement of allegations that included the payment of illegal kickbacks to doctors to get them to prescribe its products.

Merck has also been involved in a dozen FCA cases, paying total penalties of $796 million. The bulk of the total came from a $650 million settlement of allegations that included both illegal kickbacks and failure to offer Medicaid the same rebates it was offering hospital systems.

Johnson & Johnson’s $556 million FCA penalty total comes from four kickback cases as well as several involving the submission of inflated wholesale prices used in setting the rates for Medicaid reimbursements.

Among AstraZeneca’s FCA cases is a $354 million settlement of civil and criminal charges that the company provided large quantities of free samples of a prostate cancer drug to urologists, knowing that many of them were giving the medication to patients as free samples and then billing Medicare and Medicaid.

Seventeen of the 21 FCA cases involving AbbVie and its subsidiaries concerned allegations of falsified drug price reporting to federal and state agencies.

What all this shows is that when federal negotiators sit down at the bargaining table, they will be facing a group of companies that for years have not only been charging high prices but have allegedly also used a variety of illegal means to extract even more revenue from taxpayer-financed healthcare programs.

Rather than expressing indignation, Big Pharma should be displaying penitence for its fleecing of the public for so long.

Targeting the Price Fixers

The Justice Department and the Federal Trade Commission have been promoting the adoption of new guidelines that would give them a greater ability to block anti-competitive mergers. Now DOJ may also be taking a tougher stance with regard to the other main branch of antitrust enforcement: prosecuting price-fixing conspiracies that harm consumers.

DOJ’s Antitrust Division has just announced the resolution of a case brought against generic drug giant Teva Pharmaceuticals and a smaller Indian producer called Glenmark Pharmaceuticals for conspiring to fix the price of pravastatin, a cholesterol medication. Teva was also charged with anti-competitive behavior with regard to two other drugs. Teva was compelled to pay a criminal penalty of $225 million and to donate drugs worth $50 million to humanitarian organizations. Glenmark was penalized $30 million.

Along with the fines, which in Teva’s case is well above the norm in DOJ Antitrust Division actions, the agency imposed a novel penalty: requiring the two companies to divest their pravastatin business line. And although the criminal charges were softened by allowing Teva and Glenmark to enter into deferred prosecution agreements, the DOJ included a blunt warning that “both companies will face prosecution if they violate the terms of the agreements, and if convicted, would likely face mandatory debarment from federal health care programs.”

Forcing a company to leave a business in which it has engaged in misconduct can be a more effective punishment than monetary penalties, which large corporations can usually absorb with little difficulty. This is an especially appropriate approach in prosecuting companies that have shown themselves to be repeat offenders.

Among the more than 240 companies shown in Violation Tracker to have faced criminal charges brought by the Antitrust Division since 2000, there are about half a dozen which have been penalized more than once. One of those is the Swiss bank UBS, which in 2011 paid $160 million to resolve allegations of engaging in anti-competitive practices in the municipal bond market but was offered a non-prosecution agreement. The following year, UBS was accused of manipulating the LIBOR interest rate benchmark and paid penalties totaling $500 million. While a subsidiary had to plead guilty, the parent company was offered another non-prosecution agreement.

Antitrust enforcers should leave the use of financial penalties to private litigation. As I showed in a report called Conspiring Against Competition published earlier this year, class action lawsuits brought by the victims of price fixing have yielded $55 billion since 2000, more than twice as much as the penalties collected by federal regulators.

Among the most frequently sued companies were Teva and its subsidiaries, which paid out a total of $1.4 billion in 19 different class actions. Most of these involved an indirect form of price fixing in which companies collude to delay the introduction of lower-cost generic alternatives to expensive brand-name drugs.

Government regulators should use their power not just to put a dent in an egregious price-fixer’s bottom line but to force the company out of a market in which it failed to follow the rules.

Is ESG Worth Defending?

The varied environmental, social and governance efforts that go under the name ESG are facing increasing attacks from the Right. Attorneys general in red states have sought to prevent public pension funds from doing business with investment managers promoting sustainability. Public officials such as Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis bash what they call woke corporations to score cheap political points. Groups that successfully dismantled affirmative action in higher education are now targeting diversity programs in the business world.

In the face of this opposition, some large corporations are backing away from ESG-type initiatives or at least are keeping quieter about them. References to ESG are reported to be disappearing from the earnings calls companies have with analysts and investors. Some companies are exiting from alliances created to accelerate the movement toward net-zero greenhouse gas emissions.

The ease with which conservative ideologues have brought about this retreat is a sign of the shortcomings of ESG. Although companies have presented these as high-minded initiatives, they are often little more than public relations ploys.

Much of ESG originated in greenwashing—the attempt by large companies facing pressure over their environmental impact to give the impression they were changing their ways. Eventually, some large companies went from placating critics to presenting themselves as the vanguard in bringing about change. For example, in the 2000s oil giant Chevron launched an advertising campaign with the tagline Will You Join Us urging the public to emulate its supposed green behavior.

Companies followed the same pattern on other issues, depicting themselves as proponents of reform after being pressured by progressive shareholder activist groups such as the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility and As You Sow.

Along with being an attempt to undercut activism, ESG amounted to an effort to weaken government regulation. Proponents did this by promoting voluntary initiatives in lieu of legal mandates. Companies could decide which environmental and social goals to pursue and how to do so. They could also decide how to measure success.

Although there were later efforts to standardize practices and metrics, ESG remained largely under the control of corporations seeking to use it to paint themselves in the best possible light.

Seeing ESG under attack presents a dilemma for those of us who have long pressured corporations to change their behavior. We have no sympathy for those rightwing ideologues who are targeting ESG as part of an agenda that includes preservation of the fossil fuel industry and reversing progress in racial equity. Yet it is difficult to rush to the defense of what was often little more than corporate p.r.

The challenge is to separate the valid issues ESG purports to promote—sustainability, racial justice, fair labor practices, consumer protection, etc.—from the self-interested companies and investment managers pursuing their own agenda.

One way to start is to replace the term ESG with corporate accountability. This reinforces the idea that big business is the problem, not the solution with regard to many of the challenges facing the world today.

Another step is to change the way we assess corporate behavior. Evaluations of companies should be based on independently verifiable data rather than self-reporting and on compliance with government regulation rather than voluntary initiatives. When judged by these metrics, as the data in Violation Tracker make clear, most large corporations can hardly be considered paragons of social responsibility. Some are close to being criminal enterprises.

But most important is to remember that those working from outside the executive suite—environmental groups, labor unions, public interest advocates, corporate accountability activists—are the real agents of change in the business world.

Whether or not ESG survives the rightwing assault, the movement to bring about true corporate accountability will continue.

The Donald Trumps of the Corporate World

There is a word, recidivists, for those who repeatedly commit crimes. But there is no term, as far as I know, for those who commit the greatest variety of offenses.

If we are talking about public figures, the term should probably be Trumpist—given that the former president has racked up an unprecedented assortment of legal entanglements that continue to grow. But what about corporations? Which companies have engaged in the widest range of misconduct?

To answer this question, I drilled down into the data collected in Violation Tracker. The database tags each of its more than 500,000 entries with one of eight broad offense groups: competition-related offenses; consumer-protection-related offenses; employment-related offenses; environment-related offenses; financial offenses; government-contracting-related offenses; healthcare-related offenses; and safety-related offenses. These, in turn, are divided into a total of nearly 100 more specific offense types.

I set out to discover whether any of the more than 3,000 parent companies for which we aggregate data are linked to cases in every one of the eight offense groups. It turns out that 13 parents meet that criterion, but if we look only at those with substantial penalties—over $1 million—in each category, the list narrows down to five corporations. These include one freight giant (United Parcel Service), two major pharmacy chains (CVS Health and Walgreens Boots Alliance) and two large drugmakers (Bristol-Myers Squibb and Merck).

Among the wide-ranging rap sheets of these five companies, the one that stands out is that linked to Merck. It has the largest cumulative penalty total dating back to 2000: more than $10 billion. That includes ten-figure totals in three offense groups: financial, healthcare-related and safety-related.

Merck has achieved its position as the Donald Trump of the business world as a result of 86 entries in Violation Tracker. Chief among its safety-related cases is the $4.9 billion it paid to settle multi-district litigation brought by thousands of plaintiffs claiming the company’s heavily promoted anti-inflammatory drug Vioxx caused injury or death. The Vioxx scandal was also at the center of the company’s biggest penalty in the healthcare-related category, a $950 million settlement of civil and criminal charges brought by the U.S. Justice Department, as well as several consumer protection cases.

As for financial offenses, Merck had to pay over $2 billion to settle tax issues brought by the Internal Revenue Service. Merck’s government-contracting-related cases include a $650 million False Claims Act case involving improper kickbacks to healthcare providers to get them to prescribe its medications.

Merck’s competition-related penalties include a $60 million settlement by its subsidiary Schering-Plough of allegations it improperly blocked the introduction of a lower-cost alternative to one of its products. In the environmental area, Merck has paid over $33 million in penalties in nearly three dozen federal and state enforcement actions.

Finally, Merck’s record of employment-related offenses includes eleven cases dealing with retirement plan administration, gender discrimination and violation of the Family and Medical Leave Act.

One thing that can be said in Merck’s defense is that few of its penalties are from the past few years, indicating that it may be trying to improve its compliance. It’s a different story with CVS and Walgreens. Since the beginning of 2020, Walgreens has paid penalties more than two dozen times, while CVS has done so in 69 cases. Both are involved in pending multistate lawsuits relating to their role in the opioid crisis, so their penalty totals are likely to go on growing.

Companies that have paid multiple penalties in multiple categories exemplify misconduct that is not compartmentalized but instead can be found throughout a firm’s operations. Regulators and prosecutors need to do more to get these corporations to clean up their act across the board.

Biting the Hand

Few large corporations are as dependent on public sector clients as the consulting giant Booz Allen Hamilton. During its last fiscal year, 97 percent of its $9 billion in revenue came from the federal government, thanks to thousands of contracts with the Pentagon, the intelligence agencies and a wide range of civilian departments.

Given this close relationship, Booz Allen should be on its best behavior in dealing with Uncle Sam. Instead, it has been biting the hand that feeds it.

The Justice Department recently announced that the company has agreed to pay $377 million to resolve allegations that it violated the False Claims Act (FCA) by improperly billing federal agencies for costs relating to its limited amount of non-governmental work. The case was initiated by a whistleblower lawsuit filed by a former employee.

The DOJ announcement is unusual in its lack of specificity. Although it calls the case “one of the largest procurement fraud settlements in history,” the press release does not mention individual federal contracts that were overcharged or even the number that were affected by the company’s illicit practices. This may be because Booz Allen works on many classified matters, but the vagueness also suggests that the misconduct has been widespread and not an isolated lapse.

This is problematic for a firm that touts its integrity and highlights its inclusion in the Ethisphere list of the World’s Most Ethical Companies. This is despite the fact that Booz Allen faced a previous FCA case in 2006, when it paid over $3 million to resolve allegations that it and other consulting firms improperly billed the federal government for travel expenses.

Booz Allen’s new case also raises questions about the FCA itself. The law, enacted in the 1860s to deal with unscrupulous federal contractors during the Civil War, is used by the Justice Department to deal with a wide range of fraudulent behavior linked to government programs.

In Violation Tracker there are more than 2,400 federal FCA cases dating back to 2000 with total penalties of $47 billion. Booz Allen is hardly the only company with more than one entry in this category. Boeing, Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman have each paid FCA penalties more than a dozen times. Numerous large healthcare companies, both for-profit and non-profit, are also repeat FCA offenders.

This high degree of recidivism suggests that the FCA is not serving a very effective deterrent role. This may relate to the fact that FCA cases are all civil rather than criminal cases, and the penalties are usually quite affordable for the companies involved. Even the name of the law may be an issue: the phrase “false claims” gives the impression these cases involve nothing more than accounting discrepancies. In fact, what is involved is a form of fraud.

Contractors might be more inclined to deal honestly with federal agencies if they faced the prospect of being charged under something called the Fraudulent Contractor Act. Beyond that, federal prosecutors should look for ways to bring more FCA cases that also include criminal charges under other statutes.

DOJ does this from time to time—there have been 19 hybrid settlements in the past five years. The problem is that in many of these cases the defendant is offered a deferred or non-prosecution agreement, which largely nullifies the impact of the criminal charge.

The time has come for prosecutors to deal more aggressively with corporations that cheat federal agencies and thus the public.

The Big and the Bad

Proposed new guidelines on merger enforcement just released by the Federal Trade Commission and the Justice Department are a welcome development. In many industries, takeovers have put U.S. consumers at the mercy of a small number of mega-corporations all too willing to use their market power aggressively.

DOJ and FTC have put forth 13 guidelines under which the agencies could block mergers that eliminate substantial competition, increase concentration, entrench or extend a dominant position and so forth. Mergers that substantially lessen competition for workers could also be targeted.

Along with the market benefits that would come from slowing consolidation (reduction in the number of firms in an industry) and concentration (increase in the share of business activity controlled by a small number of large firms), this new aggressive posture could also help to restrain the growth of corporate misconduct.

The reason is that as corporations grow larger and more dominant they seem to become more inclined to break the rules—not only the rules against price-fixing but also those concerning labor standards, environmental protection, transportation safety and much more. Evidence for this can be found in the data collected in Violation Tracker.

A prime example is the financial services sector. The country’s four largest banks—JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Citigroup and Wells Fargo—account for $180 billion in cumulative penalties since 2000. This is nearly half of the penalties paid by all of the 330 parent companies in this sector covered by Violation Tracker.

Penalty concentration is even greater in the petroleum industry, where the top five oil companies—Exxon Mobil, Shell, Chevron, BP and ConocoPhillips—are responsible for cumulative penalties of $42 billion. That is three-quarters of the $55 billion paid by all the companies in the sector.

Big Tech giants Meta Platforms, Alphabet and Microsoft have cumulative penalties of $9 billion, which is 60 percent of the total paid by entire the information technology sector. (This excludes Amazon.com, which is categorized in Violation Tracker as a retailer, and Apple Inc., which is put in the electronics category.)

Tyson Foods, JBS (the Brazilian parent of Swift and Pilgrim’s Pride), and WH Group (the Chinese parent of Smithfield Foods), which dominate meat and poultry processing, account for $1 billion in penalties, while leading packaged food companies PepsiCo, Mondelez International, Kraft Heinz and ConAgra account for another $435 million. Together they are responsible for about 40 percent of the $3.7 billion in penalties paid by the food products sector overall.

In other industries such as motor vehicles and airlines there are few significant companies, so penalties are also highly concentrated among them.

This is not to say that mega-corporations have a monopoly on misconduct. Many of the more than 500,000 cases documented in Violation Tracker involve small firms.

Yet their misdeeds usually have a limited impact, whereas the transgressions of the godzillas of the business world cause the most harm to workers, consumers and communities. Preventing large companies from becoming even larger and more dominant will help limit these harms.

Bank Robbery

For the past few years, it was easy to get the impression that Wells Fargo was an outlier when it came to the mistreatment of customers. That bank paid billions in penalties for the creation of bogus fee-generating accounts and the application of various other types of illegitimate charges.

Now it turns out that Bank of America belongs in the same category. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency have just announced that BofA is being fined $150 million for similar unsavory behavior.

CFPB and OCC cite abuses of three main types. First, BofA is said to have engaged in the practice that made Wells Fargo notorious: the illegal enrollment of customers in accounts without their knowledge or consent. In order to do this, BofA improperly accessed consumer credit reports.

Second, BofA deployed what the regulators call a double-dipping scheme to harvest junk fees, which included charging a customer more than once for the same declined transaction. Finally, the bank is accused of luring credit card customers with special offers of cash and points, only to renege on those promises.

Regulators were not the first to bring these swindles to light. For years, BofA was sued repeatedly in class action lawsuits brought on behalf of customers. Just last month, I reported that in a compilation of consumer-related lawsuits dating back to 2000 prepared for inclusion in Violation Tracker, BofA had paid out more in settlements and damages–$3.2 billion—than any other corporation. These payouts came in 29 different class actions, a number also higher than any other company.

It will be interesting to see if the BofA revelations generate as much controversy as did those involving Wells Fargo, which not only faced criminal as well as civil charges but also received the unusual punishment of being barred by the Federal Reserve from growing in size until it improved its compliance record. The Fed also forced out several members of the bank’s board of directors.

The consequences for BofA may be less dire. I fear that these banking abuses may be losing the ability to shock the conscience. There was, for example, little uproar last year when CFPB accused U.S. Bank of engaging in the bogus account scam and fined it $37.5 million.

BofA, for its part, may just brush off the $150 million penalty it is paying to CFPB and OCC. After all, that sum may seem insignificant to a corporation that has accumulated an astounding $87 billion in fines and settlements since 2000. That total is far and away the largest among all corporations. As shown in Violation Tracker, it is more than twice as much as has been paid by second-ranking JPMorgan Chase and it makes Wells Fargo’s $27 billion total seem puny in comparison.

Even if BofA treats this new case as no big deal, the rest of us should not become blasé about the bank’s abysmal record.

Consumer Deception

Large companies like to give the impression they put customer satisfaction above all else. They constantly tout their rankings in surveys such as those conducted by J.D. Power.

Yet it also turns out they are frequently sued by groups of customers for deceptive practices. Over the past two decades, major companies have paid out over $25 billion in damages and settlements in class action and multi-district consumer protection lawsuits filed throughout the United States. Some corporations have been involved in multiple cases, and a few have had total payouts of more than $1 billion.

These findings come from a compilation of consumer protection lawsuits prepared for inclusion in Violation Tracker. Using court records, we have documented more than 600 successful legal actions dating back to the beginning of 2000. These are only cases in which a company was accused of cheating its customers by overcharging for goods and services or engaging in false advertising. This list does not include cases involving issues such as product safety or privacy violations, which were previously added to Violation Tracker. It also does not include cases brought by government agencies, which were also already in the database.

One thing jumps out from the new list of cases: banks, insurance companies and other players in the financial services sector account for a far larger portion of the penalties than any other part of the economy: over $14 billion in 249 cases. This is more than 55 percent of the penalty total and 40 percent of the cases.

Half of Big Finance’s penalty total comes from a handful of companies. Bank of America paid out over $3 billion in 29 cases. JPMorgan Chase racked up $2.3 billion in penalties in 26 cases. Wells Fargo’s penalty total is $1.3 billion from 21 cases. State Farm Insurance ranks next with $669 million from six cases.

Here are just a few of the abuses Bank of America has been accused of committing: imposing excessive overdraft fees on checking accounts; charging military customers interest rates above federally mandated limits; enrolling customers in credit protection plans without their consent; applying late fees on credit card customers who actually paid on time; and forcing home mortgage customers to purchase excessive amounts of flood insurance;

Outside the financial sector, the biggest penalty totals belong to Dominion Energy ($2.5 billion), Western Union ($508 million), Apple Inc. ($462 million), BP ($414 million) and General Motors ($389 million). Apple’s alleged transgressions ranged from distributing iPhone software updates that slowed the device’s performance to the renewal of app subscriptions without customer consent.

While most of the cases on the list involve prices, fees and other monetary practices, about 100 relate to the quality of the goods and services being sold. Over $1 billion has been paid out by companies accused of false or deceptive advertising and marketing. The single biggest penalty of this type is linked to Acer America, which paid an estimated $280 million to resolve allegations that it misled customers about the Windows operating system installed on its laptop computers.

Behr and its parent Masco paid over $100 million to settle claims that they falsely advertised their wood sealants as protecting against mildew damage. Many of the smaller settlements involved allegations that producers of food and personal-care products falsely advertised their products as organic or natural.

While many of the corporate defendants in these cases will insist they settled out of expedience, it seems clear that many large companies have a tendency to engage in dubious practices. If they are truly concerned about customer satisfaction, putting an end to these practices is a good way to begin.

3M’s Sticky Legal Situation

For the past decade, Johnson & Johnson has symbolized the deterioration of a well-regarded consumer products corporation into the target of multiple lawsuits over alleged disregard for product safety. Now another familiar company is following the same path.

3M, best known as the producer of Scotch Brand adhesive tape and Post-it sticky notes, has been embroiled in two major lawsuits that will probably result in the payment of billions of dollars in settlements. The litigation does not involve office supplies but rather two of the thousands of other products produced by a company originally known as Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company.

In one of the cases, 3M has been sued by some 250,000 military veterans who accuse the company of producing foam earplugs that failed to protect them from service-related hearing loss. This stems from a 2018 False Claims Act case brought by the U.S. Justice Department in which the company paid a penalty of $9.1 million. Last year, in what is called a bellwether case, a jury awarded a single plaintiff $50 million in damages.

In an attempt to limit its wider liability, 3M filed for bankruptcy for the subsidiary, Aearo Technologies, that produced the earplugs. Lawyers for the plaintiffs cried foul, and earlier this month a federal bankruptcy judge dismissed the filing, calling it premature. 3M is appealing the dismissal, but the Wall Street Journal reports that the company is in settlement talks.

3M is also said to be deeply involved in negotiating a settlement of its other major legal woe: lawsuits accusing the company of being responsible for the contamination of water supplies with per- and polyfluoroalkyl (or PFAS) chemicals used in the production of its firefighting foam. These substances, which have been linked to numerous adverse health effects, have become known as forever chemicals because they do not break down in the human body or the environment.

A federal judge in South Carolina, where the PFAS cases have been consolidated, recently halted a bellwether trial after the parties in the wider litigation reported that a settlement seemed imminent. This was just after DuPont and its spinoff companies Chemours and Corteva announced they had agreed to pay more than $1 billion to settle their own PFAS cases.

3M’s record apart from these two cases has not been entirely unblemished. In 2018 the company paid $850 million to the Minnesota Attorney General’s office to settle allegations that its disposal of perflourochemicals, or PFCs, over many years had damaged drinking water and natural resources in the Twin Cities area.

It has also been accused of antitrust violations. In 2006 the company paid over $28 million to settle litigation alleging it monopolized the market for adhesive tape. In 2011 3M paid $3 million to settle an age discrimination case brought by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Violation Tracker contains more than 100 other penalties the company has paid in environmental, workplace safety, and employment cases.

With the earplug and PFAS cases, it appears that the company’s aggregate penalty total will soon reach a much higher level. 3M is going to have to sell a lot more Post-its.

Update: Plaintiffs’ attorneys reported that 3M has agreed to pay over $12 billion to public water systems to resolve the PFAS litigation.