Modify massage therapist licensure requirements and to create a penalty therefor.
Summary
House Bill 1247 revises South Dakota’s massage therapy licensing laws in several ways. It requires licensed massage therapists to include their license number in advertisements and makes failure to do so a Class 1 misdemeanor. The bill also strengthens existing prohibitions on unlicensed practice by clarifying that a person commits a Class 1 misdemeanor if they practice massage without a license, operate a business that knowingly employs or contracts with an unlicensed person to provide massage therapy, or use protected titles and abbreviations such as “massage therapist,” “bodywork therapist,” “Licensed Massage Therapist,” or “LMT” without a valid license.
The bill also updates license renewal and expiration rules. It states that a massage therapy license is valid until September 30 following issuance and automatically expires unless renewed, while also referencing a two-year term from the date of issuance. For renewals, a licensee must submit an application, pay the renewal fee, and show compliance with continuing education requirements. If the board has not received a renewal application by the expiration date, it must notify the licensee within five days that the licensee may not practice until renewed. Late renewal applications submitted within 30 days after expiration may still be approved if accompanied by a board-set late fee of up to $30 and proof of continuing education compliance.
Impact
HB1247 would amend chapter 36-35 of South Dakota law governing massage therapists by adding advertising disclosure requirements, expanding misdemeanor penalties for unlicensed practice and misuse of professional titles, and refining renewal procedures and deadlines. It would affect licensed massage therapists, massage businesses, and unlicensed individuals or businesses offering massage services, while giving the board additional enforcement tools, including civil injunctive relief.
Sentiment
No committee transcript or vote record is available in the provided materials, so there is no direct evidence of support or opposition from debate or roll call. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears regulatory and enforcement-focused, suggesting an intent to tighten licensure compliance rather than expand access or scope of practice.
Contention
The main points of potential contention are the new criminal penalties and compliance burdens. Licensed massage therapists may view the license-number-in-advertising rule and continuing-education renewal requirements as administrative burdens, while businesses could be concerned about liability for knowingly employing or contracting with unlicensed practitioners. The bill also raises interpretive issues because it references both a September 30 expiration date and a two-year term from issuance, which could create confusion unless reconciled in implementation.