The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has filed a lawsuit against Walgreens, accusing the pharmacy giant of exacerbating the nation’s opioid crisis by filling millions of allegedly unlawful prescriptions.

Filed Friday, the complaint alleges that Walgreens has, since August 2012, dispensed prescriptions lacking legitimate medical purposes, including opioids prescribed in excessive quantities and dangerous drug combinations known as the "trinity"—an opioid, benzodiazepine, and muscle relaxant. The DOJ claims these practices violated the False Claims Act, as Walgreens sought reimbursement from federal healthcare programs for the prescriptions.

The False Claims Act (FCA) is a federal law designed to combat fraud against government programs, particularly those involving federal funds. In the Walgreens lawsuit, the U.S. Department of Justice alleges that the company violated the FCA by seeking reimbursement from federal healthcare programs for prescriptions that were unlawfully dispensed.

Under the FCA, it is illegal to knowingly submit false claims for payment to the government. This includes actions where a company seeks reimbursement for goods or services that were provided in violation of regulations or without proper authorization.

The lawsuit asserts that Walgreens' alleged misconduct, including filling prescriptions for excessive quantities of opioids or dangerous drug combinations, directly resulted in improper claims submitted to federal healthcare programs. If proven, these actions could constitute a violation of the FCA, subjecting Walgreens to significant financial penalties, including treble damages (three times the amount of the fraudulent claims) and statutory fines for each false claim submitted.

By targeting entities that allegedly failed to comply with their obligations while receiving federal funds, the government seeks not only financial restitution but also systemic changes to prevent future violations.

In this case, the DOJ’s invocation of the FCA underscores its argument that Walgreens’ alleged actions were not just harmful to public health but also financially exploitative of government programs intended to aid vulnerable populations.

“This lawsuit seeks to hold Walgreens accountable for the many years that it failed to meet its obligations when dispensing dangerous opioids and other drugs,” said Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Brian Boynton, who leads the DOJ's civil division.

The complaint accuses Walgreens of ignoring clear red flags, including warnings from its pharmacists and internal data, while pressuring employees to fill prescriptions quickly without adequately verifying their legitimacy. The DOJ alleges that this lack of diligence directly contributed to the worsening opioid epidemic.

Walgreens, which operates over 12,500 locations worldwide, defended its practices, stating that its pharmacists comply with applicable laws and regulations when filling legitimate prescriptions.

“We are asking the court to clarify the responsibilities of pharmacies and pharmacists and to protect against the government’s attempt to enforce arbitrary ‘rules’ that do not appear in any law or regulation and never went through any official rule-making process,” a company spokesperson said. Walgreens also emphasized its support for its pharmacists, describing them as "dedicated healthcare professionals who live in the communities they serve."

This lawsuit marks another step in the federal government’s efforts to hold corporate entities accountable for their roles in the opioid epidemic, which has claimed hundreds of thousands of lives over the past two decades.

The DOJ’s action against Walgreens mirrors other cases in which pharmacies have been accused of failing to monitor and prevent the improper dispensing of opioids. Legal experts believe the outcome of this case could set critical precedents for the responsibilities of pharmacies in addressing public health crises.

Walgreens has not yet indicated whether it plans to settle or fight the allegations in court. Meanwhile, the DOJ is seeking unspecified damages and injunctive relief to prevent future violations.