Panel backs limited lash-tech license to set training and safety standards, witnesses say

Supporters of House Bill 12 23 told the Economic Matters Committee the measure would set health, safety and training standards for eyelash-extension services while avoiding the high cost and lengthy training requirements of cosmetology or aesthetician programs.

Delegate April Rose introduced the proposal and turned the floor to industry witnesses who described risks from unregulated practice and urged a 100-hour accredited training requirement and competency exam. Charity Flaskamp, a cosmetology professional with more than two decades of experience, said a limited license would bring Maryland in line with other states and help prevent eye infections, allergic reactions and other harms.

Several salon owners and small-business advocates framed the bill as an economic equity issue. Mary Paulino, representing Maryland's minority-owned business community, said the current requirement to have a full aesthetician or cosmetology license can cost $10,000 to $25,000 and can take months to years to obtain, creating a barrier for small, often female- and minority-owned businesses. Melanie Adams, who operates two lash studios that employ about 20 people, said requiring full cosmetology or aesthetics training would force many technicians to leave the field and would undermine existing livelihoods.

Witnesses outlined the bill's proposed structure: roughly 100 hours of accredited training focused on eyelash-extension safety, sanitation and application techniques, followed by an exam to demonstrate competency. Witnesses contrasted that with a traditional cosmetology license (about 1,500 hours) and an aesthetician program (about 600 hours).

Panel discussion also addressed a recent implementation problem. Sid Saab, appearing for the American Estates Alliance, said that when eyelash language was added to the aesthetician scope of practice last year, the State Board of Cosmetology required lash artists to become aesthetician or cosmetology licensees. Saab said the board misinterpreted the legislature's intent and that the board subsequently delayed implementing the existing law until October 2025 to allow the General Assembly to consider a limited-license fix; Saab provided a letter of support from the board in committee materials.

Committee members asked whether the bill imposes penalties and how enforcement would operate. A witness said she did not believe a penalty was in the bill as presented. Delegate Rogers asked whether witnesses had tried the service; Sid Saab said he had. Delegate Turner asked how consumers can be sure an available technician on a given day is licensed; witnesses described salon practices of posting licenses and scheduling licensed technicians on specific days.

No formal vote was taken; the chair closed the hearing and moved on. Sponsors said companion materials and prior committee work on related bills informed the panel and that amendments and board input have been included in the committee packet.

Ending: The committee concluded the hearing with no immediate vote; proponents said the bill would allow skilled technicians to be licensed without forcing unrelated and costly training.