3M and Aearo Combat Arms Earplugs Settlement: The Defect the Wearer Might Not Notice

In the 3M Combat Arms Earplugs 2018 False Claims Act settlement, the company agreed to pay $9.1 million to resolve allegations that it sold military earplugs without disclosing a design defect that reduced their effectiveness. The alleged defect could escape the wearer’s notice: an earplug too short for proper insertion could loosen without the user realizing it. For someone inside a military supplier, the case puts product knowledge and the sales record side by side. What did the company know about performance, and what did it tell the government buying the equipment?

The Justice Department announced the civil settlement on July 26, 2018. This was the military-purchasing case under the False Claims Act, separate from the later individual-injury litigation. Its focus was the sale of hearing protection to the government and the information allegedly withheld from that buyer.

The Fit Problem the User Might Not Notice

The government alleged that 3M and its predecessor, Aearo Technologies, knew the dual-ended Combat Arms Earplugs, Version 2, were too short for proper insertion into users’ ears. The product was known as CAEv2. According to the government’s account, the earplugs could loosen imperceptibly and therefore did not perform well for certain individuals.

We see the absurdity in this allegation: the supplier knew about a defect the wearer might not even notice. The military bought hearing protection while, according to the government, the supplier kept that knowledge to itself.

The Justice Department alleged that 3M did not disclose the design defect to the military. It described the False Claims Act allegations as selling or causing defective earplugs to be sold to the Defense Logistics Agency.

What the Military Buyer Was Told

The alleged nondisclosure gives this case its place among nonconforming defense-product cases. The government said the supplier knew about a performance problem and sold the product without telling the military. That places the internal understanding of the product alongside the account given to the purchaser.

The underlying technical record can explain what the supplier knew about the equipment when it sought the government’s business. For an earplug supplier, that means understanding fit and performance information alongside the disclosures made to the customer. We would examine what the testing showed, who received the results, and how the product was described in the military sale.

A Company Brought the Whistleblower Case

A company brought the qui tam case under the False Claims Act, which allows private parties to sue on the government’s behalf and share in a recovery. The Justice Department coordinated the resolution with the Army Criminal Investigation Command and the Defense Criminal Investigative Service.

Flares and Satellite Parts Show the Same Information Gap

ATK Launch Systems faced allegations that illumination flares sold to the Army and Air Force could not withstand a required 10-foot drop without igniting or exploding. An employee brought the whistleblower case. The government’s account of the flare settlement puts a concrete performance requirement beside the product supplied to military buyers. A person familiar with the original test could understand a discrepancy that a purchase description alone would leave hidden.

Northrop Grumman and TRW faced allegations concerning improper testing and qualification of transistors incorporated into National Reconnaissance Office satellite equipment. The Justice Department’s satellite-parts settlement announcement described alleged concealment of reliability facts as well as defective components. The link to the earplug case is the information gap: what the supplier knew about performance and what the government was allowed to know when it bought the equipment.

What Evidence Is Needed to Prove Fraud?

For a military-product case, the useful evidence connects the product requirement, original test or inspection result, disclosure, acceptance and payment. In an earplug matter, fit information belongs in that comparison because the alleged defect concerned insertion and loosening during use. We work with the insider to connect the technical account to the government’s purchase and the company’s knowledge.

The contract and its modifications identify what was ordered. Original testing and inspection records describe the performance evaluated, while sales communications and disclosures show what reached the customer. Acceptance records and payment requests connect those accounts to the purchase. A laboratory employee, product specialist or person handling military sales may see a different part of the same transaction.

The decision after a problem becomes known matters, too. We would look at who received the information, what the customer was told afterward and which purchases were affected. In this case, the government expressly alleged both knowledge of the fit problem and failure to disclose it. That is why the communication around the product deserves as much attention as the product itself.

A 2022 study in the International Journal of Management and Humanities found a higher ratio of penalties to government contract dollars committed among sampled defense contractors with compliance and ethics programs than among those without them. Having a compliance program did not keep those companies out of the penalty data. We want to know what happened to the test result after it reached the people responsible for the sale. For a testing insider, that is where a company’s stated commitment to compliance meets its response to an actual problem.

The Whistleblower Reward Came From the Government Case

The Justice Department announced that the whistleblower would receive about $1.9 million as part of the resolution. That was the reward for the case brought on the government’s behalf, distinct from compensation sought in individual-injury litigation.

A whistleblower case under the False Claims Act can pay 15% to 30% of what the government recovers. If your knowledge concerns a military supplier’s testing, product descriptions or undisclosed performance problems, we work with you to build your strongest whistleblower case around what you saw and what the government bought.

You Know What the Buyer Wasn’t Told

If you know which fit findings or test results a military buyer never received, talk with our whistleblower experts about the product and the sale. We connect your technical knowledge to the government-money case and bring in defense contractor fraud whistleblower lawyers who understand testing and disclosure disputes. We stay beside you as your account becomes a case built on the records and decisions you know.