Relating to certain prohibited practices by a barber or cosmetologist.
Summary
SB 378 would add a new section to the Texas Occupations Code restricting certain practices by barbers and cosmetologists while they are acting within the scope of their licenses or permits. The bill generally prohibits these license holders from making an incision into the dermis layer of a person’s skin, including for the purpose of injecting a medication or other substance, and from using a “device” as defined in the Texas Health and Safety Code. The measure is aimed at drawing a clearer line between ordinary barbering/cosmetology services and medical procedures.
The bill includes an exception for a barber or cosmetologist who is separately licensed or otherwise legally authorized to perform the prohibited act in Texas. It also places the burden on the license holder, in any disciplinary proceeding, to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the act was authorized. The bill states that it does not limit the authority of other state agencies that regulate professions to enforce their own laws. It was set to take effect September 1, 2025, and apply only to conduct occurring on or after that date.
Impact
SB 378 would amend Chapter 1603 of the Occupations Code by creating a new prohibition on invasive or device-based procedures performed by barbers and cosmetologists, while preserving separate authority for licensed medical or other regulated professionals. In practice, the bill would affect barbering and cosmetology licensees, the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation, and any disciplinary actions involving alleged unauthorized medical practices. It would also interact with other state licensing and health laws by clarifying that only those independently authorized may perform such procedures within a salon or barbershop setting.
Sentiment
The available voting history suggests broad legislative support for the bill, with the Senate passing it unanimously and the House approving it by a substantial margin. That pattern indicates general agreement with the bill’s core purpose of preventing unlicensed medical-type procedures in barbering and cosmetology settings. However, the House vote also shows a meaningful minority of opposition, suggesting some concern about how broadly the restrictions might reach or how they could affect existing business practices.
Contention
The main point of contention appears to be the boundary between cosmetic services and regulated medical procedures. Supporters likely viewed the bill as a consumer-safety and professional-licensing measure, while opponents may have worried about overregulation, ambiguity in the definition of prohibited acts, or unintended effects on services that involve devices or skin penetration. The bill’s burden-shifting provision in disciplinary cases may also have been a concern for license holders, because it requires them to prove they were authorized to perform the act.