Dental Examiners V. Federal Trade Commission Case Study

After a recent United States Supreme Court decision, Kansas state boards may be vulnerable to antitrust lawsuits. Last February, the United States Supreme Court issued its opinion in North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. Federal Trade Commission (Dental Examiners). Dental Examiners concerned the North Carolina Dental Board’s (Dental Board) decision to stop teeth whitening services by non-dentists in the state. The Federal Trade Commission alleged that the Board’s teeth whitening decision had violated antitrust laws by attempting to limit competition. Prior to Dental Examiners, experts in the field generally thought that state entities such as the Dental Board had immunity from antitrust laws, but the Supreme Court’s decision

Dental Examiners addresses when State boards, such as the Kansas Board of Accountancy or the Kansas Dental Board, may be liable to antitrust lawsuits. The main issue in the case is about how we determine when states boards should be immune from such lawsuits. The United States Supreme Court ultimately determined that state boards must be actively supervised to receive immunity, which is a tough standard to meet and a standard that few state boards currently meet. With that overview in mind, we can discuss the details of the case.

Overview of Dental Examiners

Before discussing the United States Supreme Court’s opinion in Dental Examiners, an overview of the facts and issues in the case will likely be helpful. Dental Examiners involves a lawsuit brought by the Federal Trade Commission against the North Carolina Dental Board. The Dental Board shut down teeth whitening services in the state performed by non-dentists, and the FTC believed their actions violated antitrust law. Dental Examiners set the stage for the United States Supreme Court to consider whether state boards are immune from antitrust lawsuits and when such an immunity applies.

Facts of Dental