U.S. Code » Title 21 » Chapter CHAPTER 13— DRUG ABUSE PREVENTION AND CONTROL › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER I— CONTROL AND ENFORCEMENT › Part Part C— Registration of Manufacturers, Distributors, and Dispensers of Controlled Substances

21 U.S.C. § 832

Suspicious orders

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 21 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) ReportingEach registrant shall—(1) design and operate a system to identify suspicious orders for the registrant;(2) ensure that the system designed and operated under paragraph (1) by the registrant complies with applicable Federal and State privacy laws; and(3) upon discovering a suspicious order or series of orders, notify the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration and the Special Agent in Charge of the Division Office of the Drug Enforcement Administration for the area in which the registrant is located or conducts business.(b) Suspicious order database(1) In general

Not later than 1 year after October 24, 2018, the Attorney General shall establish a centralized database for collecting reports of suspicious orders.

(2) Satisfaction of reporting requirements

If a registrant reports a suspicious order to the centralized database established under paragraph (1), the registrant shall be considered to have complied with the requirement under subsection (a)(3) to notify the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration and the Special Agent in Charge of the Division Office of the Drug Enforcement Administration for the area in which the registrant is located or conducts business.

(c) Sharing information with the States(1) In general

The Attorney General shall prepare and make available information regarding suspicious orders in a State, including information in the database established under subsection (b)(1), to the point of contact for purposes of administrative, civil, and criminal oversight relating to the diversion of controlled substances for the State, as designated by the Governor or chief executive officer of the State.

(2) Timing

The Attorney General shall provide information in accordance with paragraph (1) within a reasonable period of time after obtaining the information.

(3) Coordination

In establishing the process for the provision of information under this subsection, the Attorney General shall coordinate with States to ensure that the Attorney General has access to information, as permitted under State law, possessed by the States relating to prescriptions for controlled substances that will assist in enforcing Federal law.

(Pub. L. 91–513, title II, § 312, as added Pub. L. 115–271, title III, § 3292(b), Oct. 24, 2018, 132 Stat. 3956.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases (9 in the last 5 years), 1999–2025 · leading case: City of Huntington, West Virginia v. Amerisourcebergen Drug Corporation
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
City of Huntington, West Virginia v. Amerisourcebergen Drug Corporation (2024) ca4 “7 Congress codified the suspicious order reporting requirement in the Substance Use-Disorder Prevention that Promotes Opioid Recovery and Treatment for Patients and &RPPXQLWLHV 6833257 $FW3XE/1R-†† – 6WDW   2FW codified at 21…”
Wisconsin v. Stockbridge-Munsee Community (1999) wied “1992), the United States sought an injunction pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 832 against a drug manufacturer who was violating the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA).”
United States v. AMERISOURCEBERGEN CORPORATION (2023) paed · cites it 4× “” 21 U.S.C. § 832 (a)(1), (3). The statute also incorporates the regulatory definition of a suspicious order.”
City of Huntington, West Virginia v. Amerisourcebergen Drug Corporation (2025) ca4 · cites it 2× “24, 2018), codified at 21 U.S.C. § 832 . 9 USCA4 Appeal: 22-1819 Doc: 153 Filed: 10/28/2025 Pg: 10 of 49 presented its monitoring program to the DEA, and the DEA did not object to the design of the distributors’ programs.”
Cabell County Commission v. Amerisourcebergen Drug Corporation (2025) ca4 · cites it 2× “24, 2018), codified at 21 U.S.C. § 832 . 9 USCA4 Appeal: 22-1822 Doc: 151 Filed: 10/28/2025 Pg: 10 of 49 presented its monitoring program to the DEA, and the DEA did not object to the design of the distributors’ programs.”
Cabell County Commission v. Amerisourcebergen Drug Corporation (2024) ca4 “7 Congress codified the suspicious order reporting requirement in the Substance Use-Disorder Prevention that Promotes Opioid Recovery and Treatment for Patients and &RPPXQLWLHV 6833257 $FW3XE/1R-†† – 6WDW   2FW codified at 21…”
EASTERN MAINE MEDICAL CENTER v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA INC (2022) med “” 21 U.S.C.A. § 832 (a) (West 2022); see also id.”
United States v. Walmart Inc. (2024) ded “3894 , 3956 (2018); 21 U.S.C. §§ 832 (a)(1), (3) (requiring each DEA registrant to “design and operate a system to identify suspicious orders” and “upon discovering a suspicious order or series of orders, [to] notify the Administrator of the [DEA].”
United States v. AMERISOURCEBERGEN CORPORATION (2024) paed “” 21 U.S.C. § 832 (a)(1), (3). The Government seeks civil penalties for each alleged violation.”
San Miguel Hospital Corporation v. Johnson & Johnson (2025) nmd “21 U.S.C. § 832 (a)(1), (3). Plaintiff asserts that the knowing failure to provide accurate suspicious order reports following 2018 is a RICO predicate act.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.