London Bridge Trading: A New Tag Cannot Move a Factory

In the London Bridge Trading settlement, the company agreed to pay nearly $2.1 million to resolve False Claims Act allegations that load-out bags sold to the military failed to meet Trade Agreements Act and Berry Amendment requirements. The Justice Department announced the settlement on November 20, 2023. For an insider who knows the factory, the supplier or the labels, the case turns on a familiar divide: where the goods came from and what the government was told it was buying.

What London Bridge Trading Sold and What the Government Bought

London Bridge Trading is a Virginia-based tactical-gear and equipment company. The government’s announcement describes federal purchases of its textile-based products, including clothing, armor, boots, belts, bags, rope, slings, backpacks and medical pouches. Those purchases included orders through the Defense Logistics Agency’s supply center in Columbus, Ohio.

London Bridge Trading also offered products through GSA Advantage, the government purchasing website that lets federal agencies buy from contracted vendors. That put the company’s product representations in a purchasing channel used across the federal government. The settlement specifically addressed load-out bags, within that much broader range of goods.

How to Prove Country of Origin?

Proving country of origin means connecting the actual manufacturing and supplier history to the origin representation made for the government purchase. For textile goods, that inquiry reaches the material as well as the finished item: where a bag was assembled does not, by itself, establish where its textile was produced. We examine those facts against the sourcing requirement in the contract.

The Justice Department’s announcement describes the Berry Amendment as requiring certain Defense Department purchases, including covered textiles, to be entirely domestic in origin, beyond the preference for domestic products under Buy American requirements. The Trade Agreements Act addresses a different question: covered government purchases must come from the United States or designated countries. The load-out-bag settlement concerned alleged failures under both the Berry Amendment and the Trade Agreements Act.

In its review of the F-35 supply chain, the Government Accountability Office found that almost all the identified contract records listed U.S. origin, while available origin information left much of the contributing supply chain unseen. That finding concerns aircraft supply, but it explains why we look beyond the seller’s address in a textile case: the supplier and manufacturing records reach parts of the chain the government-facing description may leave out.

Foreign Manufacturers and Replacement Labels

According to the Justice Department’s account of the court documents, London Bridge Trading allegedly submitted false claims from at least 2008 involving products described as American-made but manufactured in foreign countries, including Peru, Mexico and China. The government alleged that the company marketed goods as “100% made in America” and replaced original foreign manufacturers’ tags with tags reading “Made in USA.”

The alleged replacement did more than add a sales slogan. It removed the manufacturer’s origin information and put an American-origin claim in its place. We see the absurdity in that alleged switch: a new tag cannot move a factory. The government was buying goods subject to sourcing requirements, and the story on the label was part of what it was being sold.

For an employee who handled the goods, the original tag and its replacement would show different accounts of the same product. A purchasing employee might know the supplier behind the first tag, while someone handling government orders might know the representation attached to the sale. Connecting those views is how we examine an origin claim tied to government money.

What Proof Do You Need as a Whistleblower?

For an origin case, the useful proof connects the product and its manufacturing history to the contract requirement, the company’s representation and the government purchase or payment. The evidence that connects those records can include purchase orders, supplier and traceability records, labels, origin certifications and the documents used to obtain acceptance or payment. We work with the insider to understand which part of that chain their knowledge explains.

Knowledge of a change can be especially useful. If you saw a foreign manufacturer’s label replaced, or knew that a domestic-origin certification conflicted with the source used to fill an order, your account can connect the goods to the decision inside the business. That is the practical value of an insider’s view: understanding how the product and the promise came apart.

Who Investigated the London Bridge Trading Case?

The investigation brought together the Defense Department inspector general’s Defense Criminal Investigative Service, the Army Criminal Investigation Division, the General Services Administration’s Office of Inspector General, Homeland Security Investigations and the Defense Logistics Agency. The Justice Department said they worked with the U.S. Attorneys’ offices in the Southern District of Ohio and Eastern District of Virginia.

A London Bridge Trading employee brought the False Claims Act whistleblower case. The company settled with the United States and that employee, who would receive a share of the proceeds. A whistleblower case under the False Claims Act can pay 15% to 30% of what the government recovers.

Other Origin Cases Show the Pattern

The Revision Military settlement concerned foreign pouches, cases or straps in military eyewear systems sold through the Defense Logistics Agency’s Special Operational Equipment Tailored Logistics Support program. The sourcing requirement was the Berry Amendment’s domestic-textile rule. Revision acknowledged the impermissible sales and that employees responsible for sourcing, operations or sales knew about the noncompliant components. The textile component could matter even when the product being sold was an eyewear system.

Ossur Americas resolved allegations that it supplied foreign-made prosthetic, bracing and support products to the Army while certifying U.S. manufacture under the Buy American Act. That case puts the source of the product next to the certification used to sell it.

In the OMNI Business Systems case, the government alleged that toner products were falsely offered as Trade Agreements Act compliant through GSA and Air Force purchasing channels. It also alleged that the products remained available and were sold after instructions to remove them. That adds another place an insider may see the problem: what the company did after someone challenged the origin claim.

You Know Where the Bags Came From

If the factory, the labels and the government certification tell different stories, speak to one of our whistleblower experts about where the bags really came from. We build the case around your knowledge of the goods and bring in defense contractor fraud whistleblower lawyers who understand textile sourcing and government purchasing. We stay with you from the first call as we build your strongest defense contractor whistleblower case.