Complaint Alleges Denture Company Misrepresented Safety, Efficacy of Product

On Thursday in the Eastern District of Washington, two denture clinics filed a complaint against a denture technology company for allegedly misrepresenting a product’s safety, efficacy, and regulatory approvals.

Washington-based Fox’s Spokane Denture Clinic and Nevada-based A.Q. Denture and Dental Implant Center alleged that Canadian company Ivory Digital Denture “enticed” the representatives of the plaintiffs’ companies to purchase the defendant’s 3D denture system, “comprised of software, a 3D printer, resin, and face mapping tool,” at a trade show in October 2018. According to the complaint, the defendant represented that in three hours or less, the product would be able to create safe, “full, complete, workable, and superior” denture sets, with the resin used in the product carrying FDA approval. Each plaintiff separately purchased the product from the defendant for $66,000.

Since receiving the product and onsite training from the defendant’s representatives, however, both of the plaintiffs claimed that they have been unable to use the product “to manufacture a single complete set of properly fitted dentures fit for consumer use,” rendering the product “worthless.”

The plaintiffs detailed various features of the product that they claim do not live up to their representations by the defendant, including a defective try-on feature and lack of precision in creating the denture bases, and inaccuracy in setting the teeth. The advertisement of a full and proper denture set in under three hours fails before it can even begin for the plaintiffs, who believe the product cannot produce a full and proper denture set in the first place, according to the complaint.

More grave for the plaintiffs were the claims of safety standards by the defendant, namely that the product’s resin was as strong as Lucitone 199, a tried-and-true choice among denture resins. According to the complaint, this product’s material “is prone to shattering such that it endangers a user.”

The defendant’s claimed that the product was FDA approved also was false, according to the plaintiffs, who “have since learned Defendant has not obtained a single FDA approval” for the product or the included materials as represented.

Among the formal causes of action brought against the defendant are breach of contract under the Uniform Commercial Code; breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; unjust enrichment; fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation; and violation of the Washington Consumer Protection Act and of the Nevada Deceptive Trade Practices Act.

The plaintiffs are represented by Lee & Hayes.