Semler Scientific Inc.
| Company Name | Semler Scientific Inc. |
| Stock Symbol | SMLR |
| Class Period | March 10, 2021 to April 15, 2025 |
| Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline | October 28, 2025 |
Submit Your Information
If you suffered a loss on your Semler Scientific Inc. investments or would like to inquire about joining an action to recover your loss under the federal securities laws, please complete the form below. Please note that submission of this form does not by itself form an attorney-client relationship nor does filling out this form mean you have joined any lawsuit.
Background
On February 28, 2025, Semler filed its annual report for full year 2024 and disclosed that "there is a risk that [U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”)] will file a complaint or complaint in intervention in a civil False Claims Act lawsuit seeking damages." The Company also revealed it had received an initial civil investigative demand from the DOJ in July 2017 regarding Semler’s claims for reimbursement related to its peripheral artery disease QuantaFlo device. The Company further stated that it had participated in settlement discussions with the DOJ in February 2025, which were unsuccessful.
On this news, Semler’s stock price fell $4.03, or 9.4%, to close at $38.89 per share on March 3, 2025, thereby injuring investors.
Then, on April 15, 2025, Semler announced that it had reached an agreement with the DOJ “in principle on payment of $29.75 million to settle all claims.”
On this news, Semler’s stock price fell $3.40, or 9.9%, to close at $31.00 per share on April 16, 2025, thereby injuring investors further.
The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) Semler did not disclose a material investigation by the United States Department of Justice into violations of the False Claims Act, while discussing possible violations of the False Claims Act (and aggressive DOJ enforcement thereof) in hypothetical terms; and (2) as a result, Defendants’ positive statements about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.
Submit Your Information