Massage therapy.
Summary
(1) Existing law, until January 1, 2015, provides for the voluntary certification of massage practitioners and massage therapists by a nonprofit Massage Therapy Organization, as defined. Existing law requires the initial board of directors to, among other things, establish the organization. This bill would specify that the Massage Therapy Organization is to be known as the California Massage Therapy Council, as defined. (2) Existing law requires applicants for initial certification as massage practitioners and massage therapists to pay a specified fee and meet certain educational requirements. This bill would require a certificate holder to include certain identifying information in any advertising, and to display his or her certificate at his or her place of business. (3) Existing law prohibits the holder of a certificate or a certificate applicant from being disciplined or denied a certificate unless certain procedural requirements are met. Existing law requires actions challenging a denial or discipline to be commenced within a year after the date of the denial or discipline. Under existing law, applicants and certificate holders are liable for charges incurred before the certificate denial or certificate holder discipline, or other specified charges. This bill would delete that liability requirement and would require the council to be sued only in the county of its principal office. (4) Existing law prohibits a city, county, or city and county from enacting an ordinance, or enforcing an existing ordinance, that requires a license, permit, or other authorization to practice massage by an individual who is certified pursuant to existing law, as specified. This bill would instead prohibit those local governments from enacting an ordinance or enforcing an existing ordinance that requires a license, permit, or other authorization to provide massage for compensation against an individual certified under existing state law or against a massage business or massage establishment that employs or uses only persons who are so certified. Existing law authorizes a city, county, or city and county to charge a massage business or massage establishment a business licensing fee sufficient to cover the costs of the licensing activities, as specified. This bill would require that the fee be no different than the fee that is uniformly applied to all other individuals and businesses providing professional services, as defined and specified. Existing law authorizes a city, county, or city and county to require a background check of any person certified to practice massage. This bill would authorize such a background check of an owner of 5% or more of a massage business or massage establishment, as specified. The bill would make various conforming changes, including with regard to the failure of an owner or operator of a massage business or establishment to comply with the provisions that apply to the practice of massage therapy.
Bill status
signed
all 5 stages cleared
Introduction
Feb 2011
Committee Review
Jul 2011
Assembly Passage
May 2011
Senate Passage
Jul 2011
Signed into Law
Aug 2011
Introduced Feb 16, 2011
Signed Aug 3, 2011
Floor votes · Senate Jul 11, 2011 · Assembly Jul 14, 2011
How they voted
29–0
Passed · 2 other
Total votes 31
Jul 11, 2011
D
Democratic20
90% Yea
R
Republican11
100% Yea
Vote distribution
All Yea
All Nay
Mixed
No data
Full legislative history
Actions timeline
Total actions
31
Key actions
8
Committee
10
Amendments
1
Aug 3, 2011
Signed into law
Approved by the Governor.
legislature
Jul 14, 2011
Assembly · Passed
Assembly Vote: pass (67-0-3)
assembly
Jul 14, 2011
Lower · Passed
Senate amendments concurred in. To Engrossing and Enrolling. (Ayes 75. Noes 0. Page 2323.).
lower
Jul 11, 2011
Senate · Passed
Senate Vote: pass (29-0-2)
senate
Jul 11, 2011
Introduced
In Assembly. Concurrence in Senate amendments pending. May be considered on or after July 13 pursuant to Assembly Rule 77.
lower
Jun 14, 2011
Upper · Passed
From committee: Do pass. To consent calendar. (Ayes 8. Noes 0.) (June 13).
upper
May 26, 2011
Committee
Referred to Com. on B., P. & E.D.
upper
May 4, 2011
Lower · Passed
From committee: Do pass. To consent calendar. (Ayes 9. Noes 0.) (May 3).
lower
Apr 26, 2011
Lower · Passed
In committee: Set, first hearing. Hearing canceled at the request of author.
lower
Apr 26, 2011
Committee
Re-referred to Com. on B., P. & C.P.
lower
Apr 14, 2011
Committee
Re-referred to Com. on B., P. & C.P.
lower
Apr 4, 2011
Committee
Re-referred to Com. on B., P. & C.P.
lower
Mar 31, 2011
Committee
Referred to Com. on B., P. & C.P.
lower
Feb 17, 2011
Lower · Passed
From printer. May be heard in committee March 19.
lower
1 primary · 0 co-sponsors
Sponsors
Role
Legislator
Party
State
District
P
LH
Linda Halderman
RRepublican
Ask Maddy
·
AI policy assistant
Ask Maddy about AB 619
Scope: CA
Hi! I can help you understand AB 619. What would you like to know?
Try one of these
i
Maddy answers using official bill text and legislative records. Always verify before sharing.
Sources cited inline