AMTA Response to FSMTB and CSG Correspondence Related to the Massage Compact

There has been significant discussion in the massage profession regarding roles, responsibilities, and authority in the development and passage of the Massage Therapy Compact. Here are some points of clarification we would like to put forth on this vital topic:

1. Legislative Authority and the Role of Regulators

Interstate licensure compacts are, by their nature, legislative instruments. While regulatory boards play a vital role in implementation and enforcement, they do not possess independent authority to draft, control, or indefinitely insulate statutory language once it is introduced into the legislative process. Legislatures—not regulatory bodies—retain exclusive constitutional authority to enact, amend, or repeal statutes.

Assertions that compact language must remain static until a regulatory commission is formed improperly elevate rulemaking authority above legislative prerogative. It is neither unusual nor inappropriate for legislatures to refine compact language prior to commission formation. To the contrary, such refinement is a common and expected feature of compact development, particularly when questions arise regarding clarity, scope, enforceability, or unintended consequences. Characterizing legitimate legislative engagement as a “betrayal” of regulatory purpose misconstrues the separation of powers and risks discouraging appropriate legislative oversight.

2. Council of State Government’s (CSG) Role and Scope of Authority

CSG functions as a neutral convener and technical advisor to states and stakeholders. Its facilitation of discussions, revisions, and clarifications to compact language—at the request of states and stakeholders—is consistent with long-established best practices in compact development. Claims that CSG is “overriding” enacted law or acting beyond its authority are unsupported by the facts.

Portraying a transparent, state-driven legislative process as “unsanctioned” is legally inaccurate and does not advance constructive dialogue.

3. Federation of State Massage Therapy Board’s (FSMTB) Legislative Advocacy Record

FSMTB emphasizes its stewardship role in compact development while omitting a material fact: prior to the introduction of the massage therapy compact, FSMTB did not engage in sustained, proactive legislative advocacy to advance the profession. In contrast, professional associations and other stakeholders were actively working with legislators, responding to policy concerns, and advancing practice acts—efforts largely led by AMTA as others refused to or could not invest the resources needed to make a measurable difference. This includes many revisions to improve state practice acts over the years. 

The absence of early, sustained legislative engagement likely contributed to the need for subsequent clarification and refinement to the “original compact.” Legislative experience and feedback are not ancillary to statutory development; they are foundational to producing durable, workable law.

4. Statutory Clarity and Rulemaking Authority

FSMTB’s repeated reliance on the distinction between statute and rule does not resolve the underlying issue. Rulemaking authority must be grounded in clear, workable statutory language. Legislatures are under no obligation to defer known ambiguities or policy concerns to a future commission that does not yet exist—and may never be formed if adoption stalls.

Moreover, statutes that delegate overly broad discretion to future commissions without sufficient legislative guardrails raise legitimate nondelegation and administrative law concerns in multiple jurisdictions potentially opening the door to legal challenge.

5. Claims Regarding Human Trafficking and Licensure Fraud

While we do not refute that illicit business is an area of concern for the profession, FSMTB asserts that proposed amendments would “likely allow tens of thousands of unqualified individuals” to obtain multistate licensure and would “implicitly sanction” human trafficking and licensure fraud. These are serious allegations with significant policy implications. However, no raw data, methodology, or analytical framework has been provided to substantiate them.

Accordingly, we formally request disclosure of the underlying data supporting:

• Estimates of 18,000–20,000 illicit massage businesses;
• Claims regarding the proportion of licensed therapists allegedly connected to trafficking operations or diploma mills; and
• Any analysis demonstrating that the proposed statutory language would override or preempt state investigative, disciplinary, or license denial authority.

In the absence of transparent, verifiable data, these assertions remain speculative and should not be presented to legislators or regulators as established fact.

6. Stakeholder Engagement and Ongoing Dialogue

Finally, it is inaccurate to suggest that proposed amendments to the compact emerged in the absence of stakeholder interest or regulatory concern. Over the past several years, legislators, executive agencies, and stakeholders have raised substantive questions regarding implementation and enforcement of the massage therapy compact. Addressing those questions through legislative review and stakeholder refinement is not only appropriate—it reflects responsible governance.

AMTA remains committed to collaboration, transparency, and public protection. That commitment includes respect for legislative authority, reliance on verifiable evidence, inclusivity for licensed massage therapists in good standing—past, present, and future—and ensuring that compact language is enforceable and adaptable across diverse state regulatory environments.

We welcome any organization to engage in constructive dialogue, support data-driven solutions, and recognize that legislative participation is not a threat to regulation but a prerequisite to its legitimacy.