Align Settles $31.75M Antitrust Case

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 affordab