On Feb. 25, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the Fourth Circuit’s decision in North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. Federal Trade Commission, finding the state’s Board of Dental Examiners capable of conspiring and lacking immunity under the state-action doctrine. The board had appealed the Federal Trade Commission’s decision below that the board conspired to prevent non-dentists from offering teeth whitening services in the State of North Carolina. The board argued that as a state agency, it enjoyed immunity from federal antitrust laws.1
It remains to be seen what ripple effect, if any, will occur from this decision. But many states allow practitioners to be heavily involved in the regulatory oversight of their fields, often with little active government oversight. As a result of the court’s opinion, many industries—e.g., cosmetology, therapy, taxi/limousine services, and even the practice of law—may have to rethink their professional regulatory regimes currently in place nationwide.
Background
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
