Align Settles $31.75M Antitrust Case
Table of Contents
Facts in the Backdrop of the Incident
The dispute centered on SmileDirectClub’s role in the dental aligner and scanner markets. The company pursued strategies that critics described as monopolistic. It allegedly designed anti-competitive agreements to limit rivals, especially in the direct-to-consumer aligner segment. Exclusive contracts and market allocation were part of these tactics, raising concerns about competition and consumer choice.
Events Leading to the Legal Dispute
The conflict arose from SmileDirectClub’s deliberate efforts to reduce competition. It terminated agreements with competitors and tied product sales to block rival growth. The company also secured exclusive contracts with dental networks to cement market dominance. These steps weakened competition and slowed innovation. Over time, consumers had fewer choices in the direct-to-consumer aligner segment. The combination of exclusionary practices and restrictive deals triggered allegations of unlawful monopolization.
Plaintiff’s Injuries and Their Impact
Consumers bore the brunt of SmileDirectClub’s conduct. They paid inflated prices for aligners as competition diminished. Limited choice and reduced innovation created lasting harm in the marketplace. Plaintiffs argued that the company’s practices directly burdened consumers by restricting fair access to affordable and innovative options.
Damages
Plaintiffs sought damages for financial losses tied to overpayment. They also claimed emotional distress linked to reduced trust in the market. In addition, they highlighted broader harm from the erosion of competitive conditions. Suppressed innovation and fewer product options amplified the damages consumers experienced.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
Legal Representation
Plaintiff(s): Misty Snow | Wendy Rowland | Venus Alderman | Dana Bozian | Marjorie Sandner | Emily Vo | Kelley Stevens | Katie Campbell | Cecelia Garay | Elisabeth Skibba | Celeste Hamilton | Stephanie Rickenbaker | Angela Carnaghi | Cindy Ellis | Jennifer Ezzio | Jaime Gooch | Tracy Mound | Justin Hansen | Darlena Strong | Mike Casad | James Eaton
Counsel for Plaintiffs:Steve W. Berman | Abbye Rose Klamann Ognibene | Rio Pierce | Shelby Smith | Ted Wojcik
Expert Witness for Plaintiff: Hal Singer
Defendant(s): ALIGN TECHNOLOGY, INC.
Counsel for Defendant: David Reichenberg | James Pearl | Adam Michael Reich | Emma Farrow | John M. Hughes | Joseph W. Doman | Kannon K. Shanmugam | Karma Micaela Giulianelli | Luke Charles Beasley | Mark Leslie Levine | Michael F. Murray | Michael C. Whalen | Noah Pinegar | Robert Tannenbaum | Samara Hoose | Thomas A. Counts
Expert Witness for Defendants: William Vog
Claims: Claims Against the Defendants
The complaint outlined multiple legal counts. Plaintiffs alleged violations of the Sherman Act, state antitrust statutes, and unfair trade practices. Specific claims included monopolization, illegal agreements, and market allocation. Each count targeted SmileDirectClub’s efforts to suppress competition in both the aligner and scanner markets.
Defense
Align Technology filed a general denial, disputing the allegations and arguing the complaint lacked sufficient facts to state a valid claim. The company also challenged class certification under Rule 23 and asserted multiple affirmative defenses. These included doctrines such as in pari delicto, waiver, laches, equitable estoppel, and lack of standing. Align further argued that plaintiffs suffered no antitrust injury, failed to mitigate damages, and would be unjustly enriched by recovery.
The defense emphasized that Align’s conduct was lawful, justified, procompetitive, and protected under the First Amendment and the Noerr-Pennington doctrine. It also raised defenses based on the statute of limitations, jurisdictional defects, failure to join necessary parties, and fault of others. Additionally, Align invoked the Copperweld doctrine to bar conspiracy claims. The company sought dismissal of the complaint, recovery of its costs, and attorneys’ fees.
Settlement
On 23 May 2025, Align Technology, Inc. agreed to a $31.75 million nationwide settlement with plaintiffs, which alleged an antitrust conspiracy to fix the price of SmileDirectClub aligners. Align denied liability but chose to resolve the case to avoid further litigation costs. The settlement, subject to court approval, provided monetary relief to U.S. purchasers of SDC aligners between October 22, 2017, and August 18, 2022. It released all related claims against Align, conditionally certified a settlement class, and imposed cooperation obligations while excluding SmileDirectClub. The fund covered class payments, notice, attorneys’ fees, and administration, with no reversion to Align. The agreement barred its use as evidence of wrongdoing and allowed rescission if the court rejected it or if opt-outs exceeded seven percent.
Court Documents
Court documents are available for purchase upon request at Jurimatic@exlitem.com