Fetal tissue supplier billed $765 procurement fee per organ, warns records could imply illegal sales: records

UCLA Orders for Liver and Thymus Specimens Raise Billing Questions, But No Evidence of Illegal Conduct

Los Angeles – Newly released public‑records documents obtained by the Center for Medical Progress (CMP) show that the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) purchased individual liver and thymus samples from a private supplier, Cercle Allocation Services, at a flat rate of $765 per specimen. The records, filed under California’s public‑records law, reveal that the university’s procurement process drew scrutiny over billing language that could suggest the tissue was being sold rather than simply procured. However, the documents do not demonstrate any illegal or unethical activity by UCLA or its researchers.

What the Records Reveal

The purchase orders, issued by UCLA’s David Geffen School of Medicine – Division of Hematology‑Oncology – list the specimens as “liver” and “thymus” and assign a unique serial number and date to each. Two orders are highlighted in the records: one from August 18, 2023 lists five samples for a total of $3,825, and another lists seven samples for $5,355. In each case, the unit cost is $765.

In internal correspondence between UCLA staff and Cercle, the university’s procurement office expressed concern that the inclusion of sales‑tax language on the purchase orders might imply that the specimens themselves were being sold. Cercle responded that the $765 fee covered procurement services – transportation, handling, and quality control – and that tax should not apply to a service, not the product. An accounts manager at Cercle wrote in September 2023:

“The overriding issue is the use of terminology that we must not use due to their improper implication that we are selling taxable items, which we are not. … We must be very careful and clear that we invoice fees for our procurement services.”

Cercle also noted that purchase orders containing sales‑tax language were re‑issued without the tax clause after UCLA’s request.

The records further show that a July invoice totalling $5,355 had been processed and paid by UCLA, and a similar invoice for $3,825 was likewise settled. No invoices or detailed cost calculations from Cercle appear in the public‑records batch, nor are there any direct indications that the specimens were fetal tissue. The purchase orders identify the organs by type, serial number, and date only.

Legal Context

Federal law (42 U.S.C. § 289g‑2) prohibits the transfer of human fetal tissue for “valuable consideration” in interstate commerce, but allows “reasonable payments” for related services such as transportation, preservation, and storage. The public‑records documents do not reveal any evidence that the $765 fee exceeded permissible procurement‑related costs or that the tissue was being sold. The University and Cercle have not been charged or accused of violating federal statutes.

Who Asked for the Records?

The records were obtained by a request filed on behalf of David Daleiden, the founder of the Center for Medical Progress, a group that has long scrutinized the sourcing of fetal tissue for research. Daleiden’s investigation dates back to undercover videos released by CMP in 2015, which alleged improper handling of fetal tissue by Planned Parenthood. Those videos later became the subject of a California criminal case that was dismissed in April 2026.

Daleiden has used the public‑records request to examine whether UCLA’s procurement practices were consistent with federal regulations. In his own words, he expressed concern that the uniform $765 charge per specimen might not align with “reasonable procurement‑related expenses” allowed by law.

UCLA’s Response

The university has not responded to requests for comment from this outlet. In an internal memo, UCLA indicated that its departments had completed their search for records, and that the September 2026 production represented the final batch of non‑exempt responsive documents. UCLA also explained that researcher names were redacted from the records to protect them from potential threats and harassment related to sensitive research.

The records show that the relationship between UCLA and Cercle continued into 2025. A ticket filed in February 2025, labeled “Liver and brain,” was opened by Cercle. The ticket was canceled a week later after the supplier could not fulfill the request. No subsequent evidence indicates that fetal tissue or brain tissue was ultimately transferred.

Bottom Line

While the purchase orders raise questions about the wording used in procurement documents and the consistency of billing practices, the available records do not establish that UCLA or Cercle engaged in any illegal activity. The $765 fee was described by Cercle as a service charge, not a payment for tissue, and the university’s procurement office adjusted the documents to remove potentially misleading tax language.

At present, no federal or state authorities have charged either party in connection with the transactions. As the public‑records request was filed in May 2025, the documents cover activity through 2026, leaving the possibility of future inquiries or investigations. For now, the records simply highlight how a university’s internal processes can be subject to scrutiny when they involve the procurement of human tissue for biomedical research.