Invisalign Makers Must Face Claims It Monopolized Market For Clear Plastic Aligners

Top Class Actions’s website and social media posts use affiliate links. If you make a purchase using such links, we may receive a commission, but it will not result in any additional charges to you. Please review our Affiliate Link Disclosure for more information.

Align Technology SmileDirectClub Invisalign Class Action Lawsuit Overview: 

• Who: A federal judge denied Align Technology’s motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit filed against it by Misty Snow.
• Why: Snow claims an agreement made between Align and its competitor SmileDirectClub violates antitrust laws.
• Where: The class action lawsuit was filed in California federal court.

A reworked class action lawsuit alleging the makers of Invisalign monopolized the market will be allowed to proceed after it was given the okay from a California federal judge on Wednesday. 

Plaintiff Misty Snow claims an agreement between Align Technology Inc. and its competitor SmileDirectClub violates antitrust laws and monopolizes the market for invisible plastic aligners. 

Further, Snow claims Align controls at least 80% of the invisible plastic aligner marketplace, allowing the company to overcharge consumers for its Invisalign product, reports Law360.

In denying Align’s motion to dismiss, the judge sided with consumers in allowing claims under 11 state laws and the federal Sherman Act to proceed, however claims under four states were trimmed from the complaint. 

“Given the power imbalance between Align and SmileDirectClub, there was no reason for Align to restrain itself to induce SmileDirectClub to come to the table,” the judge wrote.

The amended version of the complaint, which the judge had previously asked class counsel to clean up, reports Law360, included new allegations that Align and SmileDirectClub had conspired to take over their individual invisible plastic aligner markets.

Snow claims Align agreed not to compete in the dentist-directed market, while SmileDirectClub allegedly agreed not to compete in the direct-to-consumer market. 

Align Argued Terminology Used In Complaint Not Precise Enough

Align had attempted to get the claims dismissed by arguing that some of the terminology used was not precise enough; namely that “$3 billion” and “multi-billion dollars” were used interchangeably, the company argued. 

“This and other instances of inartful pleading do not warrant dismissal,” the judge wrote. “While the complaint may have benefitted from an additional round of edits, Align’s argument that these statements doom the plaintiffs’ claims is frivolous.” 

The judge also disagreed with Align’s argument that the Class didn’t “plausibly allege a threat of future harm,” and thus didn’t have standing for injunctive relief under the Sherman Act. 

In December, SmileDirectClub stockholders urged a federal judge to reconsider the dismissal of their claims that the company committed securities fraud following its IPO. 

Have you ever purchased Invisalign invisible plastic aligners? Let us know in the comments! 

The plaintiff is represented by Steve W. Berman and Rio S. Pierce of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP.

The Align Technology SmileDirectClub Invisalign Monopoly Class Action Lawsuit is Snow, et al. v. Align Technology, Inc., Case No. 3:21-cv-03269, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

Read About More Class Action Lawsuits & Class Action Settlements:

• Invisalign Manufacturer, Investors Get First Approval in $16M Class Action Settlement
• Talc Makeup & Other Products: Are They Safe?
• Ulta Employees Denied Breaks, Overtime, Sick Pay, Says Class Action Lawsuit
• Target Virtual Try-On for Makeup Collects Facial Data for Research, Class Action Alleges