AN ACT Relating to requiring training for cosmetologists, barbers, estheticians, and hair designers on the care, styling, and treatment of textured hair;
HB 1874 requires Washington’s cosmetology-related licensing system to include training on the care, styling, and treatment of textured hair. The bill amends the state’s cosmetology, hair design, barbering, esthetics, and manicuring statutes and adds a new section stating legislative findings about the prevalence of textured hair and the need for professionals who are trained to serve clients with curly, coiled, coarse, and thick hair. It directs the Department of Licensing to establish curricula for students and apprentices that specifically cover techniques for cutting, styling, and chemically treating textured hair, products and tools designed for textured hair, best practices for hair health and scalp care, and cultural competency and historical education about textured hair in diverse communities.
The bill also updates definitions and regulatory provisions within the chapter governing cosmetology and related professions. It clarifies terms such as textured hair, hair design, esthetics, master esthetics, schools, apprenticeships, instructors, salons, personal services, and mobile units, and it authorizes the director of licensing to set fees, adopt rules, approve examinations, establish safety and sanitation standards, and maintain records. The bill’s effective date is March 2025, and it applies to the training and licensing framework for cosmetologists, barbers, estheticians, hair designers, and related apprentices and instructors.
The bill’s impact is primarily on professional education and licensing standards rather than on consumer rights or criminal law. It requires schools, apprenticeship programs, and licensed instructors to incorporate textured-hair instruction into their curricula, which may affect program design, training hours, and compliance obligations for cosmetology schools, apprenticeship shops, and license applicants. It also gives the Department of Licensing a clearer mandate to ensure that licensed professionals are prepared to work with a broader range of hair textures and to enforce related standards through rulemaking and licensing oversight.
Overall, the sentiment around HB 1874 appears strongly supportive. The bill passed the House committee unanimously, passed the House floor by a wide margin, and later passed the Senate committee and both chambers on final passage with comfortable majorities. The voting pattern suggests broad bipartisan agreement that textured-hair training is a needed modernization of professional licensing and education standards.
The main point of contention, to the extent reflected in the votes, appears to be the scope and regulatory burden of mandating new curriculum requirements for licensed professions and training programs. A small number of legislators voted against final passage in both chambers, which may indicate concerns about implementation costs, curriculum mandates, or the extent of state involvement in professional training. However, no committee transcript is available here, so the specific objections are not documented in the provided materials.
HB 1874 amends Washington statutes governing cosmetology, barbering, esthetics, hair design, and related licensing to require textured-hair training in approved curricula for schools and apprenticeship programs. It expands the Department of Licensing’s authority to set curriculum, safety, sanitation, examination, and renewal standards, and it adds statutory definitions and findings that shape how the state regulates these professions. The bill affects licensees, students, apprentices, instructors, schools, apprenticeship shops, salons, and mobile units by imposing new educational and compliance requirements focused on textured hair care.
The bill was generally received positively and moved with strong support throughout the legislative process. It passed committee votes overwhelmingly and secured large majorities on final passage in both chambers, indicating broad agreement that the training requirement addresses a real gap in professional education and service quality. The limited opposition suggests some legislators had reservations, but the overall sentiment was favorable and reform-oriented.
The likely areas of contention were the added curriculum mandates and the administrative burden on schools, apprenticeship programs, and licensees required to implement them. The bill’s opponents, as reflected by a small number of no votes on final passage, may have been concerned about costs, regulatory expansion, or whether the state should prescribe specific training content. No committee discussion transcript was provided, so the precise arguments for or against the bill are not documented in the supplied materials.