Why Kristi Noem's Teeth Have Landed Her In Hot Water

First came Kristi Noem's plastic surgery transformation, and then the hair extensions. Naturally, she had to top it all off with a set of pristine new teeth. The then-governor debuted her new set of pearly whites on March 12, 2024, with a social media post that sent the internet buzzing. "For years, I have needed to have an adjustment to my teeth from a biking accident," she said before launching into "heartfelt" praise of Smile Texas, a dental aesthetics company located in Sugar Land.

"The team here was remarkable and finally gave me a smile I can be proud of and confident in," she gushed. Cue a dramatic close-up of her freshly perfected teeth, followed by a cut to a B-roll clip of the lead dentist looking very engaged. She also spoke enthusiastically about the dentist's skills and even claimed that she cried tears of joy when the procedure was complete.

I love my new family at Smile Texas! The video says it all, and I am so grateful for their help fixing my smile for me. 😊🙌🏼😊 pic.twitter.com/z2kTmiY8td

— Kristi Noem (@KristiNoem) March 12, 2024

If anyone else had posted this video, it would've been instantly clocked as a typical influencer promo for people who wanted to go beyond simple tips to perfect their smile. It had the script, the buzzwords, and checked every box. But there was a glaring issue: Noem wasn't a content creator. She was a sitting governor in an entirely different state, and she didn't include an ad disclaimer. For context, FTC laws require public figures to disclose if a brand paid them or gave them perks in exchange for promotion. Skipping that isn't just shady; it's illegal. So, it's no surprise that people soon began to notice.

The New York Times reached out to Smile Texas for clarification, but the person who answered the phone refused to speak about Kristi Noem or her Mar-a-Lago-friendly teeth (she's typically one of the worst offenders of "Mar-a-Lago face"): "That's HIPAA policy. You're smart enough to know that," they said. However, the real drama started when Travelers United, a nonprofit, decided to sue Noem over the post. According to the official legal document, "Travelers United [was] taking action to force her to make corrective disclosures on all social media posts where she promotes products or services." If found guilty, Noem could have faced a fine of up to $50,120.

However, two months later, the lawsuit was dismissed due to a technicality. According to the New York Post, the judge tossed the suit because Travelers United failed to provide evidence that Noem had officially received the legal papers The organization pushed back and insisted that she had received the notice, but without adequate proof, the suit was struck out. The organization was given a two-week window to contest the dismissal, but didn't, leaving Noem free to go.

Although a dismissal doesn't equal a not guilty verdict, Noem was quick to declare victory on X. "The baseless lawsuit filed by Travelers United against me was dismissed by the court last week," she wrote. "Their actions have exposed them as a fake watchdog group filing frivolous claims to smear me. To be clear, I never received compensation for any alleged 'advertisements.'" One important point to note is that while Noem and her teeth may have walked away, the case was dismissed without prejudice. That means if Travelers United, or anyone else, finds real proof that she was compensated, they can refile as long as they manage to serve her properly next time.