A group of dental providers recently was denied class certification in their lawsuit against SmileDirectClub, law firm Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton wrote in an article published by JD Supra on March 28.
Seven notes:
1. The plaintiffs in the lawsuit, which include dental providers and consumers, allege false advertising, consumer protection violations and fraud against the teledentistry company.
2. The Lanham Act requires plaintiffs who are suing a company for false advertising to show proof of direct economic or reputational harm caused by the false advertising.
3. The group of dental providers among the plaintiffs conducted a survey that involved asking individuals to interact with a replica of SmileDirect's website.
4. The Middle District of Tennessee ruled that the survey was inadequate and that the survey's instructions did not allow for an unbiased response to the survey, according to the article.
5. The plaintiffs also presented an expert damages report that relied on the survey to prove damages, which the court also ruled to be unreliable.
6. The court ruled it was too difficult to prove the dental providers suffered economic harm as a result of SmileDirectClub's advertising, ultimately denying them the class certification.
7. The court also determined there was not enough evidence to prove the plaintiffs could adequately represent the other class members in the case, the article said.