A Florida woman has launched a class action lawsuit against Byte and Dentsply Sirona, claiming their clear aligners caused pain and bleeding while the companies refused refunds despite marketing the products as safe and effective.

At a Glance

• Paula J. Phillips filed a class action lawsuit against Straight Smile LLC (Byte) and Dentsply Sirona in Florida federal court
• The lawsuit alleges false advertising of Byte aligners as safe and effective dental solutions
• Sales and marketing of Byte products were suspended in October 2024 for regulatory review
• Phillips experienced pain and bleeding after using Byte products and was denied a refund
• The lawsuit claims violations of Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, breach of warranties, and breach of contract

Lawsuit Details and Allegations

A significant legal challenge has emerged against major dental companies as Paula J. Phillips filed a class action lawsuit against Straight Smile LLC, operating as Byte, and its parent company Dentsply Sirona. The case, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, alleges the companies engaged in deceptive marketing practices regarding their clear aligner products. The lawsuit represents Florida consumers who purchased Byte products, seeking damages for what they claim are serious violations of consumer protection laws.

The class action specifically accuses Byte and Dentsply Sirona of falsely advertising their aligners as safe, effective, and affordable solutions for dental alignment issues. According to court documents, the marketing campaigns targeted financially vulnerable consumers with promises that the products could effectively address dental problems at a fraction of the cost of traditional orthodontic treatments. However, the lawsuit contends these claims were misleading and that the products proved both ineffective and potentially dangerous for many users.

Consumer Harm and Regulatory Action

Phillips, the lead plaintiff, reports experiencing significant pain and bleeding after using Byte products as directed. When she attempted to return the products and request a refund, the companies allegedly denied her request, despite their marketing claims about customer satisfaction guarantees. This experience appears to be part of a pattern, as the lawsuit suggests many other consumers faced similar issues with the aligners and encountered resistance when seeking remedies from the companies.

In a significant development that lends credibility to these consumer complaints, sales and marketing of Byte products were suspended in October 2024 pending regulatory review. This suspension came after mounting concerns about the products’ safety and efficacy, raising questions about the companies’ quality control measures and marketing practices. The lawsuit alleges that despite knowing about consumer complaints, the companies failed to establish adequate feedback mechanisms for adverse incidents or compensate affected customers appropriately.

Legal Claims and Remedies Sought

The lawsuit contains multiple legal claims against Byte and Dentsply Sirona. These include violations of Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, breach of express and implied warranties, and breach of contract. These allegations stem from the disparity between how the products were marketed and their actual performance, as well as the companies’ alleged failure to honor their customer service commitments when problems arose.

Phillips and her legal team are seeking class action certification to represent all Florida consumers who purchased Byte products. The remedies sought include compensatory damages, attorney fees, legal costs, and a jury trial. The case, formally known as Phillips v. Straight Smile LLC et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-21074, represents a significant challenge to the rapidly growing direct-to-consumer dental products industry, which has expanded substantially in recent years with minimal regulatory oversight.

Industry Implications

This lawsuit against Byte and Dentsply Sirona highlights growing concerns about the direct-to-consumer orthodontic industry. As companies have rushed to capitalize on consumer demand for affordable alternatives to traditional dental care, questions have emerged about the safety and effectiveness of products that bypass direct professional supervision. The case may serve as a warning to other companies in this space about the potential legal consequences of overpromising in marketing materials without delivering results that match those claims.

The outcome of this class action could potentially reshape marketing practices in the dental products industry and provide important consumer protections. If successful, it might establish precedent for similar cases against other companies in the direct-to-consumer dental space. For consumers considering clear aligners or similar products, the case serves as a reminder of the importance of consulting with dental professionals and carefully researching product claims before committing to treatment plans that could affect their dental health.