Utah Senate advances tougher tanning-salon rules requiring parental consent for minors

Senators on Feb. 17 advanced a revised tanning-regulation measure that would require parents to accompany minors to tanning salons, read a health-warning statement and sign consent each visit, while adults would be required to read a warning and sign consent annually.

Senator Karen Jones, sponsor of the third substitute to Senate Bill 41, said the measure places responsibility “squarely where it should be” — with parents — and stressed medical findings linking indoor tanning to melanoma. “The risk of melanoma … increases by 75 percent if a person uses tanning beds by age 30,” Jones said during floor remarks.

The bill’s language also adds posted warnings and requires that consent forms bear the state health department’s logo, a change intended to make notices more authoritative than salon-supplied forms. Jones and other sponsors told colleagues the measure is a compromise: it does not ban minors outright but creates repeated, in-person parental notice and signing similar to existing rules for tattoos and piercings.

Opponents said the bill errs by expanding consent and signature requirements for adults and by allowing local health departments to add permitting conditions. Senator Niederhauser asked whether the bill would require all users — not just minors — to sign annual consent forms; the sponsor confirmed that adults would sign once a year and minors each visit. Senator Anderson said lines that allow local health departments to impose additional permitting requirements (lines 122–123 of the draft) could be onerous and urged revision.

Senator Jay Stevenson, a melanoma survivor, described the public-health rationale for tighter rules and said he would offer a substitute focusing on stronger health-department warnings rather than additional regulation. Stevenson said he was preparing a substitute to require clearer health warnings and photographs to educate parents and users.

After extended floor debate and several members noting the bill’s public-health purpose, the Senate voted to advance the third substitute to third reading with a roll-call tally of 18 yeas, 8 nays and 3 absent. The bill will appear on the third-reading calendar for further consideration.

The sponsor and other senators repeatedly framed the measure as an education and parental-notice tool rather than a broad regulatory ban; senators signaled interest in technical changes (statewide vs. local health-department authority, form language) before final passage.

Next step: the measure is on the third-reading calendar; sponsors indicated willingness to accept technical amendments ahead of final action.