# Whistleblower intake software, and the two categories people confuse.

> Canonical URL: https://getwolf.ai/guides/whistleblower-intake-software-plaintiff-side
> Published: 2026-08-29
> Last reviewed: 2026-08-29

Whistleblower intake software describes two unrelated categories. Corporate compliance platforms receive reports from an organization’s own employees. Plaintiff-side intake evaluates an approach from a would-be relator and decides whether there is a case. The buyers, the duties, and the adverse parties are opposites.

Written and maintained by the WOLF AI product team and checked against the public sources cited on this page. It has not been reviewed by outside counsel, and it is not legal advice.

WOLF AI is a software company, not a law firm. This page is educational and is not legal advice.

## What do the numbers say?

**1,297 — Qui tam suits filed in FY2025.** The Department of Justice reports that whistleblowers filed 1,297 qui tam lawsuits in fiscal year 2025, the highest number in a single year and a sharp rise on the previous record of 980 set in 2024. Those filings drove more than $5.3 billion in reported settlements and judgments.

Source: [DOJ: False Claims Act settlements and judgments exceed $6.8B in fiscal year 2025](https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/false-claims-act-settlements-and-judgments-exceed-68b-fiscal-year-2025)

**60 days — Minimum seal period, 31 U.S.C. § 3730(b)(2).** A qui tam complaint is filed in camera and, under 31 U.S.C. § 3730(b)(2), "shall remain under seal for at least 60 days" and is not served on the defendant until the court so orders. Courts routinely extend that period, so the confidentiality obligation on the record set is measured in months or years, not weeks.

Source: [31 U.S.C. § 3730: Civil actions for false claims](https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:31%20section:3730%20edition:prelim))

**15–30% — Statutory relator share, 31 U.S.C. § 3730(d).** Under 31 U.S.C. § 3730(d), a relator receives at least 15 percent but not more than 25 percent of the proceeds when the government intervenes, and not less than 25 percent and not more than 30 percent when it declines and the relator proceeds alone. The Department of Justice describes the typical range as 15 to 30 percent.

Source: [31 U.S.C. § 3730: Civil actions for false claims](https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:31%20section:3730%20edition:prelim))

## Who is this workflow for?

Plaintiff-side firms searching for intake tooling and finding corporate compliance hotline platforms instead, and anyone trying to evaluate a shortlist where the two categories have been mixed together without anyone noticing.

**When it is the wrong tool.** This is a category explanation, not a claim about any named vendor or product tier. It is also not the right page for an organization that needs an internal reporting hotline, which is a real need and a genuinely different product.

## What documents and inputs do you need?

- For plaintiff-side intake: what the person approaching the firm can describe, and whatever documents they can lawfully provide.
- The firm’s own screening frame — subject matter, program, agency, period, and whether the conduct plausibly touches a federal payment.
- The conflicts and first-to-file questions counsel has to resolve before anything else happens.
- For WOLF AI specifically: PDFs, including scanned records handled with OCR. Other formats need converting first.

## How does the workflow actually run?

1. Record the approach and the account the person gives, in their own words, with the firm’s screening frame applied around it.
2. Take in whatever documents exist and organize them against that account, noting what is asserted but not documented.
3. Test the account against the record: which claims, dates, and actors are actually supported, and which are currently supported by nothing.
4. Have counsel decide, on that basis, whether to take the matter, seek more material, or decline. The software has no view on that question.

## What does this look like in practice?

**Illustrative scenario.** Illustrative only — a constructed scenario. A billing supervisor approaches a firm with an account of a service code applied on dates when the clinician was not on site, and roughly 300 pages they lawfully retained.

1. The account is recorded once, structurally, so the firm is not reconstructing it from three people’s notes a month later.
2. The 300 pages are organized against the account rather than read front to back: which dates in the account appear in the documents at all.
3. Two of the four asserted patterns have supporting pages. The other two are assertion only, and are marked as assertion rather than folded in.
4. Counsel now has the actual shape of the approach — two documented patterns, two open questions — and decides what to do with it.

**What this does not show.** An undocumented assertion is not a false one. It means the record in hand does not support it yet, which is a collection question rather than a credibility finding.

## What do you get out, and who reviews it?

- A structured record of the approach and the account given.
- The provided documents organized against that account, with source locations preserved.
- An explicit separation between what the record supports and what is currently assertion.
- Counsel owns the engagement decision, the conflicts and first-to-file analysis, and every judgement about merit.

## Where does this approach break down?

- WOLF AI is not a law firm, gives no legal advice, and creates no attorney-client relationship.
- It does not evaluate the merits of a claim, assess credibility, or advise anyone whether to come forward.
- It is not a corporate compliance hotline and is not built to receive reports on behalf of an organization from its own workforce.
- The confidential intake on this site holds reports in confidence and does not pass them to a firm without that person’s explicit, case-by-case consent.

## Common questions

**Why do searches for whistleblower intake software return compliance platforms?**

Because that category is larger, older, and better documented online. Those platforms are bought by organizations to receive reports from their own employees. A plaintiff-side firm evaluating a relator’s approach is on the opposite side of the same events, and needs different software.

**Is WOLF AI a compliance hotline?**

No. It is not built for an organization to receive internal reports, and it should not be evaluated against products that are. WOLF AI works for plaintiff-side counsel, on the evidence in a False Claims Act matter.

**What happens to someone who contacts WOLF AI directly?**

Reports through the confidential intake are held in confidence and are not passed to a firm without that person’s explicit, case-by-case consent. WOLF AI is not a law firm and does not give legal advice.

## Where do these facts come from?

- [U.S. Department of Justice: The False Claims Act](https://www.justice.gov/civil/false-claims-act)
- [31 U.S.C. § 3730: Civil actions for false claims](https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:31%20section:3730%20edition:prelim))
- [DOJ: False Claims Act settlements and judgments exceed $6.8B in fiscal year 2025](https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/false-claims-act-settlements-and-judgments-exceed-68b-fiscal-year-2025)
- [U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General](https://oig.hhs.gov/)

## Continue

- [See how the confidential intake works](https://getwolf.ai/report)
- [How WOLF AI pricing works](https://getwolf.ai/pricing)
- [Book a demo](https://getwolf.ai/book-demo)
- [Security and data handling](https://getwolf.ai/security)

## Related field guides

- [Qui tam case management software](https://getwolf.ai/guides/qui-tam-case-management-software)
- [FCA and qui tam workflow glossary](https://getwolf.ai/guides/fca-qui-tam-glossary)