Federal court voids South Dakota specialty-advertising rule

A federal judge in South Dakota has struck down a state rule that limited who could advertise as a dental specialist, siding with the American Academy of Implant Dentistry and implant dentist Dr. Edward Kusek after nearly three years of litigation. The ruling protects truthful specialty advertising for ABOI/ID Diplomates and gives patients more information about dentists’ training and experience.

Why it matters: - The ruling protects the First Amendment rights of implant dentists in South Dakota. - Patients can now get more truthful information about a dentist’s implant training, experience and board certification. - The decision removes a state rule that treated specialty advertising as off-limits unless a dentist completed a specific residency path.

What happened: - The U.S. District Court for the District of South Dakota ruled for the American Academy of Implant Dentistry and longtime AAID Fellow and ABOI/ID Diplomate Dr. Edward Kusek. - Judge Karen E. Schreier permanently barred South Dakota from enforcing the specialty-advertising rule against Dr. Kusek and every similarly situated ABOI/ID Diplomate in the state. - The case was American Academy of Implant Dentistry and Dr. Edward R. Kusek v. Jackley, et al. (Case No. 4:23-CV-04113-KES, D.SD). - Carolina Hernandez, AAID’s executive director, announced the ruling after nearly three years of litigation.

The details: - South Dakota’s rule allowed a dentist to advertise as a “specialist” only after completing a two-year, ADA-recognized postdoctoral residency. - The rule did not account for how many implants a dentist had placed. - The rule did not account for how many years a dentist had practiced. - The rule did not account for board certification from an independently accredited certifying board. - AAID said the ruling preserves access to information about the certification process used by AAID and the American Board of Oral Implantology/Implant Dentistry. - Dr. Kusek was represented by Justin Withrow, Colin Callahan, Ben Reese and Antonia Gelorme of Flannery Georgalis LLC, along with Jami Bishop of Johnson, Janklow & Abdallah, LLP.

Between the lines: - The case highlights a broader conflict between state limits on specialty claims and dentists’ ability to describe their credentials accurately. - The court’s ruling favors board certification and long clinical experience over a single residency pathway as markers consumers may use when choosing care. - The outcome also gives AAID another legal win in its effort to defend members’ free speech rights.

What's next: - South Dakota cannot enforce the struck-down rule against Dr. Kusek or other similarly situated ABOI/ID Diplomates unless the ruling changes on appeal. - AAID is likely to continue using litigation and other legal action to challenge restrictions it sees as blocking truthful specialty advertising. - The decision may influence similar disputes in other states that regulate dental specialty claims.

The bottom line: - South Dakota can no longer stop qualified implant dentists from truthfully telling patients about their specialty training and credentials.