When a company faces mounting public scrutiny, especially in high-stakes litigation, it sometimes does what any crisis playbook might suggest: change the name. It’s not a financial reset. It’s a reputational one, and a strategy frequently used to deflect public ire even if the underlying legal claims remain unchanged.
Case in point: MultiPlan’s transformation into Claritev in February 2025. Originally founded in 1980, MultiPlan operated as a major player in healthcare cost management, working with major insurers since at least 2015 to reprice out-of-network medical claims. But now, despite its efforts to avoid liability at all costs, MultiPlan finds itself at the center of a federal antitrust lawsuit alleging it colluded with the major insurance companies to suppress those reimbursement rates, costing healthcare providers and their patients, according to the plaintiffs, over $25 billion.
The rebrand to the Claritev name came just as that lawsuit was heating up.
The Case Behind the Name
In June, a federal judge denied motions to dismiss that were filed by MultiPlan (“Claritev”) and several major insurers, allowing the antitrust case to proceed. The multidistrict litigation (MDL), led in part by Napoli Shkolnik, alleges that MultiPlan worked in lockstep with insurance companies to drive down out-of-network reimbursement rates through a centralized pricing platform that lacked true independence. This decision clears the way for the case to move forward and reinforces the strength of the underlying antitrust allegations.
Hunter Shkolnik, who is a partner at Napoli Shkolnik and court-appointed to the MDL Direct Action Plaintiff Executive Committee, emphasized the importance of the court’s ruling:
“The court saw through the smoke. This is an important step toward exposing how pricing decisions were made behind closed doors, and how they’ve systematically shortchanged providers. These practices aren’t just bad business, they’re illegal.”
A Familiar Playbook: Change the Name, Not the Behavior
MultiPlan isn’t the first company to rebrand under legal pressure, and it certainly won’t be the last. We’ve seen this play out countless times in the last few decades. Philip Morris became Altria during the peak of tobacco litigation, and Purdue Pharma floated a reboot as Knoa amid the opioid crisis. Even in tech, Facebook’s rebrand to Meta was seen by many as a way to redirect attention from years of regulatory scrutiny and scandal. In these cases, the strategy is simple: create distance from a damaged name while maintaining the same leadership and operations.
“These kinds of rebrands may help in the court of public opinion, but they don’t change the facts. We’ve seen companies try to distance themselves from scrutiny mid-litigation, but it doesn’t change the allegations, the evidence, or their accountability in this matter. Whether they call themselves MultiPlan or Claritev, our focus remains on holding the right parties accountable for years of price manipulation that hurt providers and, ultimately, their patients,” Shayna Sacks, partner at Napoli Shkolnik.
A New Name Doesn’t Erase the Record
Rebranding can buy time. It can confuse headlines. It might even soften search engine results. But it doesn’t change history, and it doesn’t change the legal reality facing companies accused of wrongdoing.
As the litigation against MultiPlan (“Claritev”) moves forward, the providers and communities harmed by these pricing schemes maintain their unwavering demand for justice.
