Discussion of North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. FTC over at Marginal Revolution. The Court sided with the FTC, which had deemed anti-competitive the Board's efforts to quash un-licensed teeth whiteners.
UPDATE prompted by comment below: Our earlier coverage, with links, is here. As mentioned at that earlier link, when this North Carolina case was being briefed, there was some concern that it might affect UPL and regulation of lawyers. An earlier Ninth Circuit case (Hass v. Oregon State Bar, 883 F.2d 1453 (9th Cir. 1989)) seemed to provide state bars considerable protection under the federal antitrust laws and some thought that this case might signal a weakening of the protection that, post-Hass, most of us assumed the state bars possessed. I have been at conferences where the legal service organization folks have been very supportive of the FTC's efforts in this new case and have been hopeful the case signals future actions by the FTC to open up the legal profession's boundaries.
Over at Prawfsblawg, Kate Levine wonders if the North Carolina case will spark some challenges to UPL regulation. Perhaps someone can weigh in on this, but if the UPL rules are promulgated by state supreme courts, would there be more deference than to the Board of Dental Examiners? The formula for antitrust exemption for state regulation is something like "clear articulation of a policy, coupled with (in most cases) active supervision." In this case, the SCOTUS cited Goldfarb v. Virginia State Bar (421 U.S. 773, 791 (1975)) for the principle that although state bars are a state agency for some limited purposes, that fact does not create an "antitrust shield that allows it to foster anticompetitive practices for the benefits of its members." So perhaps there will indeed be renewed challenges.