Lying is known to be endemic in a range of business settings. However, to date studies have not analysed how lies surface, and are spontaneously managed, in 'real time' interaction.Drawing on video and audio recordings, in this paper we analyse how actors account for false claims produced in different settings, namely sales, telemarketing and debt collection.Drawing on resources from ethnomethodology and conversation analysis, lies are conceptualised as products of interactional organization, rather than, say, products of the mind or motives of social actors. Our analysis reveals the centrality of 'epistemics' for understanding how people handle, and seek to neutralise, the moral risks associated with false claims. Potential accusations of 'lying' are shown to be defeasible in light of claims that the speaker has 'discovered', 'noticed' or 'remembered' some pertinent detail. We recover practices through which false claims are transformed, with varying degrees of success, from nefarious to innocent accountings. We conclude by discussing the implications of our findings for wider questions about the reproduction of work cultures that rely upon deceit.Lying is 'woven into the daily fabric of business life' (Grover, 2005: 149; see also Grover, 1995; Ashforth and Anand, 2003; Hansen et al., 2006;Shalvi et al., 2011;Brannan, 2017; Jenkins and Delbridge, 2016). Many recent corporate scandals have revealed institutionalized systems of deceit (Markham, 2006;Rhodes, 2016). However, few studies have analyzed how lies are subsumed into mundane everyday work activity. 'Whistle blowing ' and 'cover-ups' are predominantly associated with large-scale corporate scandals (Munro, 2016;Weiskopf & Willmott, 2013). This association persists even though corporate scandals such as Enron (Markham, 2006) and the VW emissions case (Rhodes, 2016) show deceit to be an everyday activity that is 'seen but unnoticed' (Garfinkel, 1967). This paper is one of the first naturalistic studies to supply an account of everyday deceit, whistle-blowing and cover-up, revealing a repertoire of practices through which actors handle the moral accountability of 'lies' in ways that manage blame and responsibility.Our use of inverted commas around the term 'lies' is an important aspect of the ethnomethodological approach we take in this paper. Ethnomethodology is a distinct paradigm of enquiry in social science (Button, 1991) that does not provide second-order social scientific theory of how social structure is generated but instead studies how members of society, as 'folk sociologists' (Wieder, 1974) or 'practical sociologists' (Benson & Hughes, 1983), use their own common-sense knowledge of social structures to constitute the social world through their interactions. We use the term 'morality-in-action' (Danby & Emmison, 2014) to refer to this ethnomethodological concern with how matters of morality are oriented to and handled in everyday interaction. As Danby and Emmison (2014) argue, in everyday life we routinely infer and invoke moral versions of our...