These days, it feels like you see emails, billboards, commercials, social media ads, radio spots – and ANYWHERE else – from legal firms spreading the word about their class-action lawsuit against somebody! It’s no surprise that their goal is to find as many individuals (or victims) who may qualify for the designated “class” to be represented. Certainly, costly or deadly consequences to even a few people would be considered tragic. However, the SAME thing happening to tens or hundreds of thousands can be a LOT more compelling. PLUS…it’s grounds for greater compensation amounts for both those named or qualified under these suit classes AND the law firms presenting the case! Think about it: “Bad guys harmed five people or business owners” versus “Bad guys harmed 100,000 people.” Who do YOU think is going to garner the most sympathetic outcome???
That said, some of these class-action suits have more “specialized” classes and do not get the same media saturation or widespread public appeal. Yet, the possible damages and impacts can be equally devastating. Many dentists we know fall into that category, and may be totally unaware they could be included in TWO different “dental-specific” class-action lawsuits are gathering steam!
As part of our mission to serve and protect dental professionals, we remain current on legislation, new regulations and other news within the field. In this function, we recently came across two separate class-actions targeting VERY familiar names in dentistry: Delta Dental and Align. And…the nature of these separate lawsuits COULD apply to YOU!
We want to give credit to TDMR (Texas Dentists for Medicaid Reform) news alerts for these legal overviews on the respective cases. We’ll take a look at the Delta Dental action. Although filed in the state of Illinois, and in the early stages, this can have FAR-REACHING for dentists nationwide…like YOU! Here’s the TDMR synopsis:
Duane Morris Takeaways: On February 6, 2024, in In Re Delta Dental Antitrust Litigation, No. 1:19-CV-06734, MDL No. 2931 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 6, 2024). roughly 240,000 dentists and dental practices sought class certification in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against Delta Dental, the largest dental insurance system in the United States, on grounds that Delta Dental and its related entities artificially lowered the reimbursement rates paid for dental goods and services to Plaintiffs in violation of the federal antitrust laws. Plaintiffs moved for class certification under Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(3) on the grounds that all class members have been harmed substantially by the alleged conspiracy between Defendants and that evidence common to the class confirms the existence of the conspiracy to suppress reimbursement rates in violation of Sherman Act Section 1.
Corporate counsel should follow In Re Delta Dental Antitrust Litigation as the ruling on class certification could have a significant impact class action law, generally, and on trade and professional associations facing antitrust issues, specifically.
Case Background
Plaintiffs are dentist and dental practices who participate pursuant to provider agreements in Delta Dental’s Premier or PPO networks. Defendants are the largest dental insurance system in the United States and are comprised of Delta Dental, its 39 state-level member companies and their national coordinating entities, Delta Dental plans Association and DeltaUSA. Plaintiffs claim that Defendants formed a cartel and committed per se violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act by agreeing to reduce reimbursements to Plaintiffs through territorial restrictions, agreeing to fix the prices for specific dental goods and services, and agreeing to restrict competition from other competitors.
Rule 23 Contentions
Plaintiffs argue that class certification is appropriate under Rule 23(b)(3) because evidence common to the class can prove the existence of the conspiracy and harm to the class in the form of lower reimbursement rates. Plaintiffs claim that written agreements imposed territorial restrictions on competition and required adherence to uniform, or fixed, prices for dental goods and services. The agreements also restricted efforts to sell dental insurance under different brands. According to the model advanced by Plaintiffs’ economic expert, Plaintiffs will be able to establish both class-wide impact and class-wide damages on behalf of more than 97 percent of the proposed class. Plaintiffs also argue that Defendants’ procompetitive justifications for the restrictions are irrelevant in a per se antitrust case, but, in any event, are without merit because premiums paid by dental patients increased substantially during the class period and Delta Dental passed on the increased premiums to executives in the form of generous salaries.
Implications For Corporate Defendants
In Re Delta Dental Antitrust Litigation is another example of a federal court class certification decision that will turn whether evidence of common, injury-producing conduct exists. It will be interesting to follow whether the Court credits evidence as capable of showing the impact of the allegedly anticompetitive conduct across all class members at trial.
You can rest assured that if this litigation continues, and the class IS certified, this will have nationwide ramifications for any dentists or practices who were Delta Dental providers…and we know this applies to countless Texas dentists!
The next one focuses on an emerging trend in orthodontia…the Align Technology invisible aligners. This dental innovation has made cosmetic teeth straightening more accessible to dental patients – and their general dentistry providers. Again, this initial filing has occurred out-of-state, this time in California. But, just as in the Delta Dental case, the outcome could reverberate among dentists across the country. Here is the TDMR outline of the case specifics:
Two dental practices have filed a class-action lawsuit against Align Technology, alleging the company engaged in anticompetitive conduct, according to a Jan. 2 news release from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
Here are six things dentists and orthodontists need to know about the lawsuit:
1.The practices claim that the conduct caused those who bought aligners directly from Align to pay more than they should have.
2. Align has denied the allegations. The court has not determined if Align has done anything wrong.
3. The class action is on behalf of any people or entities based in the U.S. that purchased aligners directly from Align between Jan. 1, 2019, and March 31, 2022.
4. By doing nothing and staying in the suit, class members may be entitled to money obtained by the plaintiffs through trial or settlement. Class members give up any rights to separately sue Align Technology for the same claims as the class-action lawsuit.
5. Class members can exclude themselves and give up the right to share any money obtained in the lawsuit. Those who opt out retain the right to be a part of another lawsuit that seeks money for legal claims that come out of this class-action lawsuit against Align.
6. The trial is set to start May 13. There is no guarantee the plaintiffs will win or receive any money from the lawsuit.
Align provided the following statement to Becker’s: “Align believes the plaintiffs’ claims are without merit and we intend to vigorously defend ourselves against the claims in the lawsuits. Align maintains that its discounts and superior products, technology and service benefit dental practices and patients and are neither anticompetitive nor unlawful. The lawsuits have nothing to do with the clinical effectiveness or safety of Align products and should not prevent doctors or patients from using our clear aligners or scanners. We are proud to be driving the revolution of digital orthodontics and restorative dentistry by helping doctors transform smiles and change lives for millions of people around the world.”
We honestly do not know how either of these legal actions will play out. However, we DO know anything involving anti-trust, price-fixing or other issues that fall under the purview of the Federal Trade Commission tends to carry significant judicial weight.