The Court held that a state board could be liable if a “controlling number of decisionmakers are active market participants in the occupation the board regulates.” While the Court referenced the majority on the Dental Board, it did not specifically state that only boards with a majority are at risk. A dissent by Justice Samuel Alito noted that the Court left the term “controlled” vague and unclear. An additional issue is what does “active market participant” mean? The Court defined it as someone “who possess singularly strong private interests.” In this case, that appears to mean someone who works in the industry and has an interest in limiting competition in the industry. In summary, the Supreme Court did not make it clear what “controlled by active market participants” meant in the decision, and therefore that is likely to be a major point of contention going forward. As will be discussed later, the FTC guidance will likely serve as a major source of information on this
The Court held that a state board could be liable if a “controlling number of decisionmakers are active market participants in the occupation the board regulates.” While the Court referenced the majority on the Dental Board, it did not specifically state that only boards with a majority are at risk. A dissent by Justice Samuel Alito noted that the Court left the term “controlled” vague and unclear. An additional issue is what does “active market participant” mean? The Court defined it as someone “who possess singularly strong private interests.” In this case, that appears to mean someone who works in the industry and has an interest in limiting competition in the industry. In summary, the Supreme Court did not make it clear what “controlled by active market participants” meant in the decision, and therefore that is likely to be a major point of contention going forward. As will be discussed later, the FTC guidance will likely serve as a major source of information on this