The SmileDirectClub lawsuit landscape now centers on one payout for customers and a scatter of other cases that mostly ended without direct consumer money. A $31.75 million antitrust class action settlement was approved on November 21, 2025, covering people who bought SmileDirectClub aligners between October 22, 2017, and August 18, 2022. Alongside it sit a New York attorney general recovery for post-shutdown billing, a District of Columbia case that freed thousands of customers from nondisclosure agreements, individual injury claims pushed into arbitration, securities fraud suits from IPO investors, and a Chapter 7 liquidation that is still unwinding the company itself.
The $31.75 Million Antitrust Settlement
The case is Snow v. Align Technology, Inc., filed May 3, 2021, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (No. 3:21-cv-03269). Plaintiffs alleged that Align Technology, maker of Invisalign, and SmileDirectClub agreed to restrict Align’s ability to compete in the U.S. direct-to-consumer aligner market, and that more than one million SmileDirectClub customers paid inflated prices as a result.1Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP. SmileDirectClub Aligners Price-Fixing Antitrust
An early version of the complaint was dismissed in September 2021. A reworked version survived in February 2022, when the court found the alleged arrangement was a “naked restraint on trade.” Two buyer classes were certified in November 2023. Align first proposed a $27.5 million deal combining cash and coupons; the judge rejected it, noting that the coupon component would “direct still more customers to the monopolist.” Align then agreed to an all-cash $31.75 million settlement.2Law360. Snow v. Align Technology Articles
On November 21, 2025, U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria granted final approval, calling the settlement “fair, reasonable, and adequate,” and overruled four objections as “without merit.” Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP serves as class counsel.3Midpage. Snow v. Align Technology Final Approval Order Align denies wrongdoing, and the court made no ruling on the merits.4SDC Aligner Settlement. Snow v. Align Technology Settlement
Who Qualifies
The class covers anyone in the United States who purchased, paid for, or reimbursed the price of SmileDirectClub aligners for personal use between October 22, 2017, and August 18, 2022. People identified as buyers in SmileDirectClub’s records qualified for automatic payment with no form to file. Everyone else had to submit a claim by October 27, 2025.5SDC Aligner Settlement. Settlement FAQ If you did not file by that date and were not in the company’s records, the claim window has closed.
What Payments Look Like
Per-person estimates have shifted. The official settlement site initially projected $40 to $60. The Hagens Berman FAQ later put the figure at $80 to $100, with a $10 minimum regardless of the final math. The actual amount will depend on how many valid claims come in and what remains in the fund after fees and administrative costs.6Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP. SmileDirectClub Settlement FAQ Payments are set to go out by mail to the address on file or electronically through Zelle, PayPal, or Venmo. As of the most recent available information, distributions had not yet been made following the November 2025 final approval.4SDC Aligner Settlement. Snow v. Align Technology Settlement
How the Align Partnership Produced the Antitrust Claim
The antitrust case grew out of a deal that turned into a war. In July 2016, Align became SmileDirectClub’s exclusive third-party aligner supplier and took a $46.7 million stake in the company along with a board seat.7Align Technology. Align Technology to Supply Non-Invisalign Clear Aligners The partnership broke apart in March 2019, when an arbitrator found Align had violated the agreement by opening its own retail concept, and ordered Align to close those stores, return its stake, and stay out of the market until August 2020.8Yahoo Finance. SmileDirectClub Appeal Decision Align Technology
Once the non-compete ended, Align filed its own arbitration demand in August 2020, alleging SmileDirectClub had breached the supply agreement. In May 2023, an arbitrator awarded Align $63 million; a California trial court confirmed the award that August. To appeal, SmileDirectClub would have needed to post a bond of more than $94 million.9DrBicuspid. SmileDirectClub to Appeal Order to Pay $63M to Align Technology Weeks later, the company filed for bankruptcy.
The Bankruptcy and Chapter 7 Liquidation
SmileDirectClub filed for Chapter 11 on September 29, 2023, in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas (No. 23-90786). It had lost close to $900 million between 2020 and 2022, and the $63 million Align judgment added pressure the founders’ proposed $20 million injection could not offset.10Axios. SmileDirectClub Bankruptcy Filing Operations ceased in December 2023, and on January 26, 2024, the case converted to Chapter 7 liquidation, with Allison D. Byman appointed as trustee.11Kroll Restructuring. SmileDirectClub Bankruptcy
The estate is still litigating. The trustee sued the Katzman family, SmileDirectClub’s founders, in October 2025, and sought outside litigation funding from Omni Bridgeway to pursue further claims against them. The founders opposed the funding request, pointing to their existing loan agreement; the estate owes them more than $28 million in senior secured debt from emergency loans made during the bankruptcy.12Bloomberg Law. SmileDirectClub Founders Fight Trustee’s Litigation Funding Bid For former customers, this side of the case is unlikely to translate into direct payments; consumer recoveries have come through the separate Align settlement and the state enforcement action described below.
The New York AG Recovery for Post-Shutdown Billing
After SmileDirectClub announced its permanent shutdown in December 2023, it continued charging tens of thousands of customers through its “SmilePay” financing program, telling them on its website that monthly payments were still required.13New York Attorney General. Attorney General James Recovers $4.8 Million for Consumers Wrongly Charged
New York Attorney General Letitia James issued a cease-and-desist letter that December. By November 2024, her office reached a settlement with the payment processor, Healthcare Finance Direct, recovering $4.8 million for more than 28,000 consumers nationwide, including 2,265 New Yorkers. Refunds were first applied to outstanding balances, with any excess returned to the payment method on file.14Spectrum News. N.Y. Attorney General Recovers $4.8 Million From SmileDirectClub
The DC NDA Lawsuit
Before the bankruptcy, the District of Columbia’s attorney general went after a different practice. SmileDirectClub required customers seeking refunds after 30 days into treatment to sign nondisclosure agreements barring them from writing negative reviews, describing product harms, or filing complaints with regulators. The company threatened litigation and fines of up to $10,000 for violations.15DC Office of the Attorney General. AG Racine Sues SmileDirectClub for Making Consumers Sign NDAs
Attorney General Karl Racine sued on December 5, 2022, under DC’s Consumer Protection Procedures Act.16DrBicuspid. SmileDirectClub Hit With Lawsuit Over NDAs The case settled in June 2023, with SmileDirectClub agreeing to release roughly 17,000 customers from the NDAs. The settlement did not include consumer payments; it freed people who had signed the agreements to speak publicly about their experiences.17The New York Times. SmileDirectClub NDA Settlement
Injury Claims Ran Into Arbitration
Consumers have filed numerous complaints alleging that SmileDirectClub aligners caused gum disease, bone loss, loose teeth, and jaw pain, and that the company misrepresented dentist supervision, failed to honor its “Lifetime Smile Guarantee,” and pursued aggressive collections against people seeking refunds.18ClassAction.org. SmileDirectClub Lawsuit
Those claims mostly did not survive as class actions. In Sollinger v. SmileDirectClub (S.D.N.Y., 2020), the court enforced the company’s arbitration clause as a valid “clickwrap” agreement covering medical and dental care claims.19ProSkauer. Sollinger v. SmileDirectClub Order In Ciccio v. SmileDirectClub (M.D. Tenn.), a plaintiff tried to arbitrate, but the American Arbitration Association declined the case under its healthcare due process rules. The district court let the plaintiff return to court; the Sixth Circuit reversed in 2021, holding that whether those rules applied was itself a “gateway” question for an arbitrator.20FindLaw. Ciccio v. SmileDirectClub With class treatment blocked, plaintiffs’ lawyers turned to mass arbitration, filing thousands of individual claims at once.
Securities Fraud Suits From the 2019 IPO
SmileDirectClub went public on September 12, 2019, and the stock dropped more than 43% within 15 days. Shareholder suits followed. The complaints alleged the registration statement and prospectus misled investors about who was actually providing treatment, whether the company qualified as a teledentistry provider, and the scope of regulatory scrutiny over unauthorized dental practice.21D&O Diary. Ginsberg v. SmileDirectClub Complaint
The main case, In Re SmileDirectClub, Inc. Securities Litigation, was filed in Tennessee state court. A class of IPO purchasers was certified in April 2021. In March 2022, the Tennessee Court of Appeals affirmed class certification but dismissed one Securities Act claim for lack of standing and remanded for further proceedings.22Justia. In Re SmileDirectClub Securities Litigation The company’s later bankruptcy complicated the path forward. These claims belong to IPO shareholders, not to aligner customers.
Fights With State Dental Boards
SmileDirectClub’s model of at-home impressions and retail “SmileShops” drew opposition from state regulators and professional groups, including the American Association of Orthodontists.23American Association of Orthodontists. Federal Court Dismisses Majority of SmileDirectClub’s Claims The company sued back. A Georgia federal court ruled in May 2019 that its digital scans fell “squarely within the definition of the practice of dentistry,” and a similar challenge was filed in Alabama.
In California, SmileDirectClub sued the state dental board, alleging its members, many of them practicing dentists and orthodontists, ran “unfounded investigations” and “coordinated statewide raids” to push the company out of the market. The Ninth Circuit in 2022 reversed dismissal of the antitrust claim, holding that board members who are “active market participants” cannot regulate their competitors free from antitrust accountability, while affirming dismissal of the constitutional claims.24U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. SmileDirectClub v. Tippins The American Dental Association also filed a citizen petition with the FDA in May 2019, and in January 2020 nine members of Congress asked the FDA and FTC to investigate the company.25American Association of Orthodontists. Congressmen Write Letter to the FDA and FTC Over Concerns Regarding SmileDirectClub