Invisalign Australia Pty Limited v SmileDirectClub LLC [2023] FCA 395

Invisalign Australia Pty Limited v SmileDirectClub LLC [2023] FCA 395

None of the impugned representations by SDC in its promotional material, including representations regarding total cost, 'less than $4 a day', efficacy, comprehensive solution, and comparative advertising (including '60% less', 'up to 60% less') were found to be false, misleading or deceptive or likely to mislead or deceive ordinary or reasonable consumers in the relevant class. The Court held that the dominant messages were clearly about price and were appropriately qualified; comparisons did not suggest equivalency of treatments/efficacy; and the cost claims were not misleading when properly contextualized. SDC's cross-claim against Invisalign also failed as none of the challenged...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 May 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil/commercial (consumer Law) / Final Judgment After Trial With Cross Claim
Outcome
Application and cross-claim dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['misleading and Deceptive Conduct' 'comparative Advertising' 'false Representations' 'australian Consumer Law Ss 18 and 29']
['consumer Law' 'commercial Law'] ['misleading and Deceptive Conduct' 'comparative Advertising' 'false Representations' 'australian Consumer Law Ss 18 and 29']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Civil/commercial (consumer Law) / Final Judgment After Trial With Cross Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether SDC's promotional materials contained representations that were false, misleading or deceptive or likely to mislead or deceive contrary to ss 18 and/or 29 of the Australian Consumer Law" "Whether SDC's comparative advertising representations (including '60% less', 'up to 60% less') were misleading under ACL" "Whether SDC's representations about total cost, cost per day, efficacy, and comprehensive solution were misleading or deceptive" 'Whether Invisalign made false, misleading or deceptive representations regarding SDC aligners or regarding its own treatment with respect to comfort, predictability, treatment time']

Ratio Decidendi

None of the impugned representations by SDC in its promotional material, including representations regarding total cost, 'less than $4 a day', efficacy, comprehensive solution, and comparative advertising (including '60% less', 'up to 60% less') were found to be false, misleading or deceptive or likely to mislead or deceive ordinary or reasonable consumers in the relevant class. The Court held that the dominant messages were clearly about price and were appropriately qualified; comparisons did not suggest equivalency of treatments/efficacy; and the cost claims were not misleading when properly contextualized. SDC's cross-claim against Invisalign also failed as none of the challenged...

Court Disposition

Application and cross-claim dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['Applicant granted leave to file and serve the Amended Concise Statement.' "Applicant's (Invisalign) claim is dismissed." "Applicant (Invisalign) to pay respondents' (SDC) costs of the claim, to be fixed by lump sum." "Cross-claimant's (SDC AUS) cross-claim dismissed." "Cross-claimant (SDC AUS) to pay...