Witnesses urge Vermont committee to require licensure for massage therapists and to license businesses to curb illicit operations

At a recent meeting of the House Government Operations & Military Affairs Committee, witnesses urged lawmakers to replace Vermont’s current registration system for massage therapists with mandatory state licensure and to extend licensing to massage businesses, testifying that the change would strengthen public protections and help law enforcement identify illicit operations.

The American Massage Therapy Association’s Vermont chapter argued that registration is “little more than simply a registry, a list, not an effective regulatory tool to ensure public health and safety,” and recommended a state‑mandated license with defined scope of practice, minimum education and a psychometrically valid exam. A separate witness for World Without Exploitation said licensing businesses would improve inspectors’ access and make it easier to shut down illicit massage businesses tied to human trafficking.

Why it matters: Witnesses said licensure creates enforceable standards — ownership verification, employment checks, routine inspections and clearer title protection for practitioners — that registration has not delivered. They said stronger regulatory authority over businesses would provide law enforcement and regulators tools to distinguish legitimate practitioners from illicit operations allegedly used to traffic vulnerable people.

Testimony and key claims

A representative of AMTA Vermont said the chapter “did request licensure” after the legislature in 2020 established registration for massage and other touch professionals and added that rules required under that law have not been promulgated to the group’s knowledge. The witness said many states require licensure; in the hearing two slightly different figures were cited: AMTA’s witness said Vermont would be joining 45 other states plus the District of Columbia and U.S. territories that require licensure, and later in the discussion a committee member noted “There are 47 states that currently have licensed.” The article records both statements as reported to the committee.

The AMTA witness raised concerns about fees, saying the initial registration fee set in 2020 was $90, later increased to $275, and that the current biennial renewal fee is $275, which the witness described as “not commensurate with the level of regulation” and “overly burdensome.”

Patty Conleyer, speaking on behalf of the anti‑trafficking group World Without Exploitation and its counsel, told the committee that her organization has identified “at least 20” illicit massage businesses in Vermont and pointed to recent local cases in Burlington, Brattleboro and Bennington. Conleyer said licensing businesses under the Office of Professional Regulation would allow routine compliance checks and make it easier for investigators and prosecutors to act.

Conleyer said law‑enforcement officials and the interim director of the Office of Professional Regulation (OPR) raised the issue to her group, and that national hot‑line and law enforcement reports link illicit massage businesses to human trafficking. She said licensing would support verification of ownership and employment practices, routine inspections, better law enforcement support and improved public safety and professional integrity.

Committee response and next steps

Committee members asked whether existing criminal statutes and investigative tools were insufficient and whether licensing would be more effective. Members referenced other states’ experiences — Maine was cited as a state that requires licensing for massage businesses and that the number of illicit operations there appeared low — and asked the witnesses to coordinate follow‑up information with law enforcement and other state officials.

Representative Casey was reported to have a licensing bill in drafting. The committee agreed to place the matter on its active‑consideration list for further review and follow up; that action was described as a committee direction rather than a formal vote or adoption of a bill.

What the record shows and what it does not

Witnesses told the committee that the 2020 law created registration (not licensure) for massage therapists and that required implementing rules have not been finalized; the committee did not adopt any legislation at the meeting. The committee asked for additional information and said it would seek further testimony and documents, including state comparisons and law‑enforcement input.

Ending

Committee members and witnesses said they would continue conversations and provide additional materials to staff and members as the committee considers draft legislation and other regulatory options.