Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Cosmetology Exemptions topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Institute for Justice urges exemption for makeup and blow‑dry services from cosmetology license

Regulatory Review Subcommittee, South Carolina Legislature · February 3, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

JoJo Tompkins of the Institute for Justice told the Regulatory Review Subcommittee that state law should exempt makeup application and blow‑dry styling from full cosmetology licensure, citing high training costs and evidence the services present lower public‑health risk.

JoJo Tompkins of the national nonprofit Institute for Justice testified the committee should modernize South Carolina’s cosmetology laws to exempt makeup application and express blow‑dry styling from full cosmetology licensure.

"By exempting makeup artistry and express styling services from cosmetology regulation, this bill could take an important step towards aligning licensing requirements with actual risk," Tompkins said, adding that the average cost to attend cosmetology school in South Carolina is about $16,994. She cited the Institute for Justice study "Clean‑cut," which the group says analyzed inspection data and found no evidence that heavier licensing improves safety outcomes for low‑risk services.

Tompkins told the panel that South Carolina already exempts certain retail makeup services in department stores, but that the exemption does not apply outside retail settings — meaning a makeup artist could work in a store without a license but not at a wedding venue or photography studio. She asked the committee to add statutory language to clarify which services require full licensure and which do not, and offered to provide model statutory text and comparative language from other states (including Georgia's 2024 exemption example).

Committee members raised concerns about whether short training should be required to address health‑and‑safety issues, including identifying infectious conditions or signs of domestic abuse. Tompkins said some states pair exemptions with a brief health‑and‑safety course (she referenced a 4‑hour example) and offered to supply model course or exemption language for the committee’s consideration.

No vote was taken. The committee asked staff and agency representatives to draft amendment language and reconvene to consider proposed changes.