INTRO
Welcome to Womble Perspectives, where we explore a wide range of topics from the latest legal updates to industry trends, to the business of law. Our team of lawyers, professionals, and occasional outside guests will take you through the most pressing issues facing businesses today and provide practical and actionable advice to help you navigate the ever-changing legal landscape. With a focus on innovation, collaboration, and client service, we are committed to delivering exceptional value to our clients and to the communities we serve. And now our latest episode.
Host 1:
A dispute between the federal government and Anthropic is creating an unusual compliance problem for government contractors. What began as a disagreement over restrictions Anthropic placed on certain uses of its Claude models has developed into litigation over whether the government may designate a domestic technology company as a supply chain risk. Contractors are now being asked to make certifications about their use of Anthropic products while the legal basis for those requests remains contested.
Host 2:
That puts contractors in a difficult position because litigation and contract compliance operate on different timelines. A court may still be evaluating whether a designation is lawful, while an agency or prime contractor expects an immediate response to a certification request. The existence of an ongoing court challenge does not necessarily suspend every related obligation or prevent requests from flowing down through the contracting chain.
Host 1:
There are also two separate legal authorities involved. One allows the Department of Defense to manage supply chain risks connected with sensitive national security and defense systems, while the other is part of the Federal Acquisition Supply Chain Security Act framework. Anthropic challenged the resulting designations in separate proceedings, which have produced different interim outcomes rather than one clear answer.
Host 2:
In the California proceeding, a district court issued a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of the designation made under the Defense Department authority and related directives. The court concluded that Anthropic was likely to succeed on several claims, including arguments involving First Amendment retaliation, due process, and federal administrative law. But in the separate FASCSA proceeding, the D.C. Circuit declined to stay the designation at the preliminary stage, although it granted expedited review.
Host 1:
So, contractors cannot treat the California injunction as a complete resolution. One legal pathway has been temporarily blocked, but the separate FASCSA designation remains active while that case proceeds. In the meantime, contractors and subcontractors are receiving requests about whether they use Anthropic products, maintain relationships with Anthropic, or incorporate its technology into products and services supplied to the government.
Host 2:
The wording of those requests is part of the problem. Terms such as “use,” “relationship,” “integration,” and even “Anthropic technology” may not be clearly defined. A contractor may understand direct use of Claude, but the answer becomes less obvious when Anthropic functionality is embedded in third-party software, offered through a cloud service, or used internally outside the direct performance of a government contract.
Host 1:
That ambiguity creates a serious risk around inaccurate certifications. A company could state that it does not use Anthropic technology, only to discover that the technology is present within software supplied by a vendor or used by a lower-tier subcontractor. Because certification statements may become part of the contractual record, an incorrect answer could lead to questions about compliance, eligibility, or contract administration.
Host 2:
And even a correct certification may not remain correct. Software providers regularly add new features, cloud environments change, and organizations adopt new integrations or change vendors. A contractor therefore needs to think about these certifications as continuing compliance matters, not merely as forms that can be completed once and filed away.
Host 1:
The article also identifies a particularly complicated split between civilian and defense-related requirements. Anthropic received FedRAMP High authorization in July 2026 for Claude Code and Claude Cowork in specified government cloud environments. That means some civilian agencies may be permitted to use those tools, while defense contractors and military subcontractors may simultaneously face pressure to remove the same technology.
Host 2:
For organizations supporting both civilian and defense programs, that disconnect makes clear boundaries especially important. Shared cloud environments, software licenses, business systems, and personnel could create overlap between projects governed by different expectations. Contractors may need to understand not only whether Anthropic technology exists somewhere in the enterprise, but also where it is used, for which contract, and under what authorization or restriction.
Host 1:
A careful response begins with an internal assessment. Contractors should identify direct Anthropic products, software containing relevant capabilities, cloud systems supporting contract performance, and technologies used by suppliers and subcontractors. They should also document the reviews they conduct, the questions they ask vendors, and the reasoning that supports the final response.
Host 2:
Documentation matters because a defensible process may be as important as the final answer. If a certification is later questioned, the contractor should be able to explain what information was available, what diligence was performed, and how ambiguous terms were interpreted. That record can also make it easier to revisit the certification when software, suppliers, agency instructions, or court decisions change.
Host 1:
Contractors may also need to seek clarification rather than accepting broad or undefined language at face value. Depending on the facts, it may be appropriate to consider knowledge qualifiers, limit a representation to contract performance, distinguish direct use from indirect use, or state that the response is based on currently available information. Any proposed revisions should accurately reflect the contractor’s diligence rather than creating certainty the organization cannot support.
Host 2:
The broader lesson is that traditional supply chain rules may not map neatly onto modern technology environments. Embedded capabilities and cloud-based services can make a technology provider difficult to isolate, particularly across complex contractor and subcontractor networks. Until the courts provide greater clarity or agencies adopt more consistent guidance, organizations should monitor both proceedings, review new certification language carefully, maintain visibility into their technology supply chains, and avoid absolute statements that go beyond what they can reasonably verify.
OUTRO
Thank you for listening to Womble Perspectives. If you want to learn more about the topics discussed in this episode, please visit the show notes where you can find links to related resources mentioned today. The show notes also have more information about our attorneys who provided today's insights, including ways to reach out to them. Don't forget to subscribe via your podcast player of choice so that you never miss an episode. Thank you again for listening.
