Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Massage Council Sunset topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
California Massage Therapy Council faces divided testimony over certification, fees and court fights
Summary
Supporters including county prosecutors and anti‑trafficking groups defended the California Massage Therapy Council’s voluntary certification model at a sunset hearing, while critics and affected students urged licensure or major reforms amid ongoing litigation and fee controversies.
The California Massage Therapy Council (CAMTC) faced sharply split testimony at a joint sunset hearing, with law‑enforcement officials and anti‑trafficking advocates urging continuation of the council’s voluntary certification model while critics including a massage school and dozens of students called for state licensure or major reforms after a prolonged legal dispute.
What CAMTC told lawmakers: Mark Dixon, CAMTC board chair, and CEO Amos Netanyahu defended the council’s public‑private model, saying CAMTC has vetted more than 350,000 applications, taken about 13,000 disciplinary actions and maintained partnerships with local governments and law enforcement at no state cost. “I believe the legislature made the right choice when they authorized a certification program for massage professionals rather than licensure,” Dixon said, arguing the model is faster and less costly for consumers and local jurisdictions.
Support from prosecutors and anti‑trafficking groups: Santa Clara County District Attorney Jeff Rosen and multiple anti‑trafficking coalitions testified that CAMTC’s nimbleness helps local enforcement shut illicit massage establishments and protect vulnerable victims. Rosen described an instance in Palo Alto where prosecutors brought charges and CAMTC revoked a certificate within a day, leading to closure of the illicit operation.
Criticism, court dispute and student hardship: Opponents — prominently the A to Z Health massage school and affiliated speakers — told lawmakers they have been caught in prolonged investigations and litigation with CAMTC and alleged procedural irregularities, including hearings of students and the council’s handling of school approvals. Several students said their CAMTC certification applications have been delayed for more than a year and that the delays have caused economic harm.
Fees, governance and transparency questions: Lawmakers questioned CAMTC’s November 2022 fee‑analysis process and later board decisions to raise fees and set executive compensation. Some legislators and public commenters said the fee study and subsequent actions lacked timely public notice; CAMTC responded the board used an external compensation consultant and has posted materials for review. The committee flagged March 2025 court activity in litigation between CAMTC and A to Z and asked for post‑hearing materials.
Why it matters: The split testimony highlights tension between two goals — an agile, locally coordinated response to illicit establishments and consistent statewide oversight and transparency. Several anti‑trafficking and law‑enforcement witnesses urged continuation of CAMTC; other witnesses and a school requester urged a state licensing board or legislative reforms to improve transparency and student protections.
Next steps: Legislators asked CAMTC for follow‑up materials on pending litigation, its fee and compensation studies, and procedures for notifying students at schools under investigation. The committee indicated it will weigh the competing public‑safety and transparency arguments during the sunset review process.
