by Daniel Powers

On May 31, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) recorded yet another victory in its continuing efforts to limit the scope and application of antitrust immunity under the state action doctrine.  The Fourth Circuit ruled that the North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners’ efforts to block non-dentists from providing teeth-whitening services was not entitled to antitrust immunity because the Board’s activities were not actively supervised by the state.  North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. Federal Trade Commission, Case No. 12-1172 (4th Cir. May 31, 2013).

The case focused on the activities of the North Carolina state agency, which is composed of several practicing dentists, a dental hygienist and a consumer representative.  The Board licenses dentists in the state and is otherwise empowered to take disciplinary measures against licensees.  Beginning in approximately 2003, in response to complaints from dentists practicing in the state, the Board opened numerous investigations into teeth-whitening services provided by non-dentists.  As a result of these investigations, the Board issued dozens of cease-and-desist letters to such service providers and sought to restrict the market to licensed dentists by other means.

The Board’s activity attracted the attention of the FTC, which issued an administrative complaint in 2010 charging that the Board violated the FTC Act by acting to exclude non-dentist teeth whiteners from the market in North Carolina.  A trial on the merits before an administrative law judge found the Board had violated the Act.  On appeal, the FTC affirmed and entered a final order enjoining the Board from, among other things, continuing to unilaterally issue extra-judicial orders to teeth-whitening services in North Carolina.  The Fourth Circuit’s decision came in response to the Board’s petition for review of the FTC’s order.

The Board maintained that it was a state entity created to regulate the practice of dentistry, which encompassed the teeth-whitening services.  Under the state action doctrine, private parties may claim immunity from the antitrust laws if they act according to a “clearly articulated and affirmatively expresses state policy,” and their behavior is “actively supervised by the State itself.”  California Retail Liquor Dealers Ass’n v. Midcal Aluminum, Inc. (445 U.S. 97, 105 (1980).  Municipalities and sub-state entities benefit from a less restrictive test.  Such entities must act pursuant to a “state policy to displace competition with regulation or monopoly public service.”  FTC v. Phoebe Putney Health System, Inc., 133 S. Ct. 1003, 1010 (2013).  These entities are not required to demonstrate the “active state supervision” required under the two-prong Midcal test because with such entities there is little danger that their activities involve a private anti-competitive activities. Town of Hallie v. City of Eau Claire, 471 U.S. 34, 47 (1985).

Relying on its status as a state entity, the Board maintained that it was not subject to the “active supervision” prong required under Midcal.  The FTC countered that entities like the Board, regulatory bodies made up of market participants, were subject to the stricter Midcal test.  The FTC focused on the need to [...]

Continue Reading