Legislators, law enforcement and stakeholders debate CAMTC’s role amid lawsuits, fee hikes and calls for licensure

The California Massage Therapy Council (CAMTC) faced intense scrutiny at the joint sunset review hearing for its voluntary certification model, recent fee and compensation actions, enforcement practices and an ongoing court dispute with a school operator that has been central to public comment.

Board and staff presentation: Mark Dixon, chair of the CAMTC board of directors, and Amos Netanel, CAMTC chief executive officer, described CAMTC as a public‑benefit nonprofit that has certified more than 50,000 massage professionals and taken more than 13,000 disciplinary actions. CAMTC representatives said the voluntary certification model enables rapid collaboration with local law enforcement and local governments and argued licensing by a state board would be less nimble and far costlier for practitioners.

"I believe the legislature made the right choice when they authorized a certification program for massage professionals rather than licensure," CAMTC Chair Mark Dixon said, arguing that licensure would make certification "far more expensive" and slow enforcement.

Law enforcement and anti‑trafficking support: Several local law enforcement leaders and anti‑trafficking advocates testified in favor of CAMTC, saying the council's partnerships allow quick enforcement responses and help shut down illicit massage establishments. Jeff Rosen, District Attorney of Santa Clara County, said CAMTC's prompt action in one case led to a parlor closure within a day after police filed criminal charges.

School revocation litigation and public complaints: The hearing included extended, often emotional public comment from students, school owners, applicants and representatives of a single controversial operator (identified in public comment as "A to Z Health" and related entities). CAMTC staff said the council has proposed revocation for that school after an investigation that identified alleged transcript and attendance irregularities and other issues (the council cited proposed grounds including "failure to maintain accurate records" and "engaging in fraudulent practices"). The operator and affected students said they faced repeated, disruptive unannounced visits and inconsistent administrative hearings; they told the committee they have filed litigation and obtained court orders related to CAMTC's actions.

Transparency, fees and CEO compensation: Several committee members and members of the public criticized CAMTC's handling of a November 2022 fee analysis and a subsequent fee increase that raised the two‑year certificate fee. Committee members said CAMTC represented itself as "solvent" during the 2022 sunset process yet commissioned a fee study the month after its sunset bill was signed and then moved quickly to seek the maximum fee permitted by statute. CAMTC leaders defended the study and said they worked with an independent consultant to benchmark CEO pay; they described the study, published materials and board deliberations as transparent and publicly posted.

Concerns about due process and hearing procedures: Multiple public commenters complained about proposed school denial and certification‑revocation procedures, claiming inadequate notice and inconsistent hearing officer practices. CAMTC's special counsel explained that proposed denial processes follow statutory procedures that permit applicants to seek judicial review; she described CMTC's criteria for proof of rehabilitation and its practice of using experienced, segregated hearing officers for school and certification matters.

Stakeholder divide: Testimony at the hearing showed a sharp split. Law‑enforcement and many anti‑trafficking service providers urged continuation of CAMTC's model, citing nimble enforcement, interagency coordination and victim‑sensitive processes. School owners, students, and some legal challengers argued that CAMTC had overreached, exercised insufficient transparency and should be replaced by a state licensing board or stricter statutory oversight. Several students said they had completed education and paid fees but remained uncertified; others asked the Legislature to require a state licensure board instead of a voluntary certification model.

What lawmakers asked for: Committee leaders asked CAMTC for follow‑up documents, including board materials, the fee study and the compensation benchmarking analysis, and signaled they expect additional oversight due to the litigation and the mixture of supportive and critical testimony. Chair Ashby and other members said they planned to continue working with CAMTC, local law enforcement and stakeholders to address concerns about student notice, hearing transparency and CAMTC’s accountability.

Public comment highlights: Testimony included support from multiple district attorneys and anti‑trafficking advocates, arguments from school owners and graduates (some saying they had lost income while awaiting certification), and calls from others to convert to a traditional state licensing model. Several speakers asked the committees to require better student notification when schools are under investigation and greater clarity on CAMTC’s internal processes and hearing procedures.

Next steps: Lawmakers asked CAMTC to compile requested materials for the committee record, and several committee members said they will coordinate with legal counsel and staff to evaluate CAMTC’s structure, transparency and statutory status while monitoring the pending court actions.