An Act To Amend Title 24 Of The Delaware Code Relating To Aestheticians.
SB295 updates Delaware’s cosmetology and barbering chapter to revise and expand the statutory definition and scope of practice for aestheticians. The bill expressly lists services aestheticians may perform, including chemical and physical exfoliation, microdermabrasion, cosmetic microneedling, dermaplaning, extraction, hydrotherapy, lash and brow services, non-ablative skin rejuvenation, and limited ablation of the epidermis. It also defines several technical terms used in the chapter, such as ablation, dermaplaning, microneedling, extraction, hydrotherapy, and different skin layers, and clarifies that aestheticians may not diagnose illness or perform medical treatment like a dermatologist.
The bill also revises related licensing and apprenticeship provisions. It requires licenses to be prominently displayed or available on demand at the place of business, and it requires apprentice licenses to be displayed at the apprentice’s workstation. It updates apprenticeship reporting rules and clarifies that an apprentice may not employ the supervising licensee. In addition, the bill makes technical corrections throughout Title 24 to align the code with drafting standards and to conform terminology across cosmetology, barbering, electrology, nail technology, and aesthetics provisions.
SB295 would amend Title 24 of the Delaware Code, primarily within the chapter governing cosmetology and barbering, by codifying a broader and more detailed scope of practice for licensed aestheticians and by adding operational requirements for license display and apprenticeships. It affects aestheticians, cosmetology shops, apprentices, and the Delaware Board of Cosmetology and Barbering, while also clarifying what services are permitted and what remains outside the profession’s authority. The bill is intended to reduce ambiguity in state law and align statutory language with current training and practice in the field.
The available bill synopsis indicates generally supportive intent: the measure is presented as a clarification and modernization of the law rather than a major policy shift. The stated rationale is that current law does not reflect the services aestheticians are trained to perform, and the bill aims to provide clarity for both professionals and the public. No committee transcript or vote record is provided, so there is no recorded opposition or formal debate in the supplied materials.
The main substantive issue is the boundary between cosmetic services and medical procedures. The bill expands what aestheticians may do, but it also draws limits by prohibiting diagnosis, medical treatment, and ablation of the dermis or hypodermis. That boundary could matter to regulators, dermatology stakeholders, and practitioners concerned about patient safety, training standards, and overlap with medical aesthetics. Another point of attention is that the expanded authority is expressly conditioned on training requirements and manufacturer directions, which suggests implementation will depend on Board rules and could be a source of future dispute if standards are viewed as too broad or too restrictive.