Federal Court Strikes Down South Dakota Dental Advertising Restrictions
A federal court struck down South Dakota’s dental advertising restrictions, ruling that dentists may market bona fide credentials—including implant dentistry—even in areas the American Dental Association does not formally recognize as specialties. On July 20, 2026, U.S. District Judge Karen Schreier granted summary judgment to the American Academy of Implant Dentistry and Sioux Falls dentist Dr. Edward Kusek, and denied the South Dakota Board of Dentistry and Attorney General Marty Jackley. The plaintiffs argued the Board’s 2023 rules violated First Amendment commercial-speech protections. The decision tracks earlier AAID victories against the Texas, California, and Florida boards, reinforcing that truthful, non-misleading specialty advertising by dentists is constitutionally protected.
For dental groups and DSOs, this clears the way to advertise credentialed specialties like implant dentistry in South Dakota without fear of Board sanction—an immediate marketing and recruiting lever. Multi-state operators should still audit advertising rules state by state, since specialty-claim restrictions vary and remain actively litigated.
While we aim to share useful and relevant resources, we do not guarantee the accuracy of content on this site or any external links. Views and opinions expressed in referenced content do not necessarily reflect those of Healthcare Growth Strategies.
Can dentists in South Dakota now advertise as implant specialists?
Yes. On July 20, 2026, a federal court struck down the South Dakota Board of Dentistry rules that barred such claims, holding that truthful specialty advertising is protected commercial speech. Dentists may advertise bona fide credentials, including implant dentistry, even where the specialty is not ADA-recognized.
What legal standard did the court use to strike down the dental advertising rules?
The court applied First Amendment commercial-speech protections. Restrictions on truthful, non-misleading professional advertising must directly advance a substantial government interest and be no broader than necessary—a test South Dakota’s rules failed, consistent with the Central Hudson framework.
How does this ruling affect multi-state dental groups’ marketing?
It confirms a growing trend: the American Academy of Implant Dentistry has now prevailed against the South Dakota, Texas, California, and Florida boards. Multi-state operators should still review advertising rules jurisdiction by jurisdiction, since specialty-claim regulations differ and enforcement varies by state board.