Dear CAMTC Certified Massage Professional:

The Governor has signed Assembly Bill 1703 (AB 1703) into law, and because of clarifying language initiated by CAMTC, it protects your right to legally practice manual therapy in California.

Here’s what happened and why it matters to you.

The Risk

Earlier this year, the Osteopathic Physicians and Surgeons of California (OPSC) sponsored AB 1703 to prohibit anyone not licensed by the Osteopathic Medical Board of California from professionally using the title “Osteopath.” It also included a caveat preserving Osteopathic Manipulative Treatment (OMT) as a physician-only intervention. As introduced, the bill made it a crime for anyone other than a Doctor of Osteopathy to perform OMT, which it defined as “the therapeutic application of manually guided forces to alleviate somatic dysfunction.”

Upon review, CAMTC realized that numerous licensed professionals - physical therapists, occupational therapists, chiropractors, and others - as well as massage professionals, could be barred from practicing manual therapy techniques if the bill became law. For massage professionals, the Massage Therapy Act’s definition of massage as “the scientific manipulation of the soft tissues” would have been undermined. As written, the OMT definition was broad enough to cover nearly every form of manual therapy, putting the practice rights of tens of thousands of licensed healthcare providers and massage professionals at risk.

CAMTC’s Requested Amendments

On July 23, 2026, CAMTC initiated a direct conversation with the bill’s author and sponsor to raise our concerns about the overbroad language. Both were receptive and constructive and made clear they never intended to impinge on the legal practice of massage in California.

The August 24, 2026, legislative analysis reflected those concerns, stating that opponents believed the bill could stop trained professionals, including massage therapists, from using manual techniques they had safely practiced for years, techniques used across several health professions and not exclusive to massage. The analysis went on to say that no single profession can claim exclusive control over manual therapy techniques.

CAMTC was not alone. Other organizations raising the same concerns included:

AMTA’s Initial Position

Unlike CAMTC, the American Massage Therapy Association (AMTA) did not have concerns about the original version of AB 1703, which would have prohibited massage professionals from practicing.

On August 5, 2026, while the original problematic language was still in print, AMTA issued a Governmental Relations Update stating: “Because OMT is outside the typical scope of massage therapy practice, AMTA does not believe AB 1703 will adversely affect qualified massage therapists practicing within their scope.”

That same day, in correspondence about revising the OMT definition, AMTA advised the Legislature: “We are in agreement that the bill as currently in print is sufficient, there isn’t a need to further clarify the definition of massage therapy.”

CAMTC and the seven other organizations listed above saw the potential exposure differently. CAMTC believed the language then in print created a real risk for massage professionals and kept pressing for an amendment.

The Clarification Is Now Written into Law

In evaluating options for clarifying AB 1703, our priority was alignment with the existing Massage Therapy Act. Section 4600.5 sets out the Legislature’s intent that certification and oversight be consistent statewide and, critically, “that both state and local regulation of massage therapy reflect the recognized status of certified massage professionals as health care providers.”

On August 7, 2026, the bill’s sponsor shared new language developed with the insight and experience of the committee’s consultant:

“Nothing in this paragraph shall prohibit the practice of a California healthcare licensed profession or massage services authorized by California law.”

CAMTC immediately informed the author, the sponsor, and the Legislature that this language addressed our concerns. AMTA agreed with the new version as well, and we appreciated that agreement. We also appreciate the consultant’s comprehensive approach; the revised language reaches further than what we originally proposed.

What This Means for You

If you provide massage services authorized by California law, AB 1703’s restriction on OMT does not impact your practice. You may continue to use the manual therapy techniques you are trained and qualified to provide.

Government Licensure Does Not Guarantee the Right to Practice

The revised language initiated by CAMTC was necessary to protect licensed healthcare providers as well as massage professionals. It shows that mandatory government licensure does not provide legal protection from new legislation. The long-held belief of some that licensure for the massage profession is necessary to protect our scope of practice simply isn’t true. AB 1703 made clear that holding a license does not, by itself, shield a profession from legislation that encroaches on its scope of practice.

The Lesson: Better Together

Forty-four years as an AMTA member, past President of AMTA California, and seventeen years serving CAMTC have taught me one thing above all: when we disagree, our profession is best served by open dialogue among all stakeholders.

CAMTC and AMTA have not always seen eye to eye. That does not have to define our relationship. We serve many of the same professionals and want the same good things for them. CAMTC’s invitation to sit down with AMTA to discuss issues and work collaboratively remains open.

AB 1703 is now law, and your right to practice manual therapy in California is protected. That happened because CAMTC paid attention, spoke up, and worked the process on your behalf.

Thank you for the work you do every day for the people of California.

Please contact Beverly May, Director of Governmental Affairs, at beverly@camtc.org with questions and/or comments.

Sincerely,