The Texas Attorney General's Office filed suit in Travis County District Court alleging that Benco Dental Supply Company violated Texas antitrust law through its participation in an illegal group boycott affecting the dental supply market. The settlement includes an agreed final judgment that prohibits Benco from engaging in similar anticompetitive conduct and requires the company to pay $300,000 to the State of Texas.
The investigation focused on Benco's role in what the state characterized as an illegal group boycott within the dental supply industry. Group boycotts, also known as concerted refusals to deal, occur when competitors agree to refuse to do business with certain customers or suppliers, and are generally considered per se violations of antitrust law that harm competition and consumers.
Under the terms of the settlement agreement, Benco is permanently enjoined from participating in any future group boycotts or similar anticompetitive arrangements in the dental supply market. The $300,000 monetary penalty reflects the state's enforcement priorities in protecting competitive markets that serve Texas healthcare providers and ultimately patients.
The Benco settlement represents part of Texas's broader antitrust enforcement efforts under Attorney General Paxton, who has pursued various competition cases including investigations into major technology companies and their business practices. The dental supply industry has faced scrutiny from multiple state attorneys general over concerns about anticompetitive coordination among distributors.
"Without the proper protections in place, this acquisition would mean fewer choices for borrowers with limited credit options," said Attorney General Paxton in a related statement about protecting consumer choice. "My office will continue to protect choices for Texas consumers by stopping those trying to take away competition through the acquisition of their rivals."
The agreed final judgment filed in Travis County District Court provides ongoing oversight to ensure Benco's compliance with the settlement terms. The case demonstrates state-level enforcement of antitrust laws in specialized industries where federal agencies may have limited resources or focus.