Opinion ID: 887749
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Issue 4: Do Board of Dentistry restrictions on denturity constitute unlawful restraint on trade?

Text: ¶ 32 The fourth challenge to the BOD is that its restrictions on denturity violate § 30-14-205(2), MCA, of the Montana Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Act (MUTPA). That statute states that, It is unlawful for a person or group of persons, directly or indirectly: (2) for the purpose of creating or carrying out any restriction in trade, to: ... (c) prevent competition in the distribution or sale of merchandise or commodities. Section 30-14-205(2)(c), MCA. Before we can evaluate the purported violation of § 30-14-205(2)(c), MCA, however, we must address the threshold question of whether the BOD is a person subject to restriction under MUTPA. ¶ 33 We addressed the question of whether state agencies were persons under MUTPA in Montana Vending Co. v. Coca-Cola Bottling, Inc., 2003 MT 282, 318 Mont. 1, 78 P.3d 499. There we stated that, the plain and ordinary interpretation of this language is that MUTPA was created to apply to businesses, not government. Montana Vending Co., ¶ 34 (emphasis in original). As such, we held in Montana Vending Co. that school districts were not persons under MUTPA. Montana Vending Co., ¶ 37. The same reasoning is applicable here. Furthermore, as a matter of common sense, it is clear that the Legislature, in designing the regulatory structure for denturists and dentists, did not envision the BOD's regulatory function could somehow constitute the unlawful restraint of trade. Thus, we hold that the BOD, like school districts, is not subject to MUTPA. Accordingly, Appellants have not stated a claim of unfair trade practices as a matter of law.