Print Page   |   Contact Us   |   Report Abuse   |   Sign In   |   Become a CBA Member
Community Search
Sign In

Forgot your password?

Become a CBA Member

Latest News

Cancelled - Diversity and Inclusion Committee Meeting (CDI161024)

Insurance Law Section Meeting (SIL161024)

Sports and Entertainment Law Section Meeting (SSE161025)

YLS Diversity Dinner (SYL161026)

SAT160519 Administrative, Antitrust, Consumer, Fed Practice, Health Law, Prof Discipline Sections
View Registrations Tell a Friend About This EventTell a Friend

Antitrust and Trade Regulations Meeting at the Hartford Club on Thursday, May 19, 2016.

When: Thursday, May 19, 2016
12:00 p.m. - 2:00 p.m.
Where: The Hartford Club
46 Prospect Street
Hartford, Connecticut 
United States
Contact: Member Service Center

Online registration is closed.
« Go to Upcoming Event List  

“Teeth Whitening And Antitrust Immunity: Are State Licensing Boards Exposed?”

A round table discussion, led by Attorney David P. Atkins of Pullman & Comley, LLC.

In North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. Federal Trade Commission (2015), the U.S. Supreme Court held that members of a state professional licensing board or tribunal who are "active participants" in the same “market” as the professionals they regulate do not automatically enjoy state-action immunity from antitrust damages actions. Instead, immunity for licensing boards and their members will now attach only if the body in question both: (1) acts pursuant to, and in conformance with, a clearly articulated state policy; and (2) is "actively supervised" by the state.

Please join us for a round table discussion of the implications of Supreme Court’s holding. Will it lead to a fundamental change in our state’s historic regulation of health care professionals through licensing boards made up of volunteer members of a profession?   Will such volunteers now be reluctant to serve on regulatory boards? Will it encourage more antitrust lawsuits by practitioners facing regulatory scrutiny who claim a licensing board’s enforcement or disciplinary action amounts to an actionable restraint of trade against a competitor?