Illicit Businesses (IBs) – storefronts that masquerade as legitimate massage therapy clinics while engaging in prostitution and trafficking – pose a serious challenge for communities. In response, many U.S. cities and counties have turned to municipal ordinances and massage establishment licensing requirements as tools to combat IBs. When crafted well, these local laws can disrupt trafficking networks and distinguish legitimate massage therapy from illicit sex trade fronts. But poorly designed regulations can misidentify the problem, unfairly stigmatizing licensed massage therapists and imposing burdensome barriers on law-abiding practitioners.
So what is establishment licensing, really?
- It’s a business license specific to massage that a city requires in addition to a general business license.
- It usually demands the massage business owner submit applications, undergo inspections, and pay fees.
Is it the same as a business license?
No. A general business license is what every business in a city needs—whether you’re a coffee shop or a shoe store. An establishment license is a specialized, extra layer for massage (or certain other industries) meant to increase oversight.
How is that different from an ordinance?
- A municipal ordinance is the local law or code—the written rules passed by a city council that lay out the requirements for operating a business, including whether an establishment license is required.
- An establishment license is the permit or credential you get once you comply with the ordinance’s requirements.
Bottom line?
Well-crafted ordinances can help—especially if they focus on red-flag behaviors like late-night hours, locked doors, or illegal advertising. But simply requiring an establishment license, without careful enforcement and without targeting actual trafficking indicators, doesn’t solve the problem. It often just piles burdens on the very massage therapists trying to do things right.
Many cities believe requiring massage businesses to get an establishment license will drive out illicit massage businesses (IMBs) engaged in prostitution or trafficking. But does it actually work?
The research says: not really.
Multiple sources, including The Scoping Document by Deborah Kimmet : Establishment licensing has not been proven to effectively reduce IBs.
Establishment licensing has consistently failed to reduce illicit massage businesses (IBs) or trafficking operations. Research shows traffickers often evade compliance altogether, submit false information, or operate without licenses, rendering the system ineffective. In cities like Houston and Tampa, the majority of IBs simply ignored licensing requirements with little consequence. Of 34 cases Polaris highlighted, only seven involved establishment licensing, and none demonstrated clear success. Furthermore, enforcement typically defaults to law enforcement, not regulatory agencies, and when licensing fails, cities often resort to using building codes or public nuisance lawsuits to shut down bad actors. Meanwhile, these licensing requirements impose significant burdens on legitimate massage therapists, duplicating state regulations and increasing costs without providing meaningful protection. Ultimately, the evidence suggests that establishment licensing does not effectively target traffickers and instead risks harming the very professionals it claims to protect.
In fact:
✅ No conclusive studies show establishment licensing alone deters traffickers.
✅ Polaris Project’s own report admits traffickers adapt quickly, shifting locations or forging documents to keep operating.
✅ Local licensing often duplicates state licensing, adding red tape for legitimate therapists while traffickers simply avoid or fake compliance.
✅ Over time, some cities with establishment licensing still see high numbers of IMBs because enforcement resources are limited or inconsistent.
Other studies say the same.
Licensing massage therapists in the name of crime: the case of Harper v Lindsay October 2020 Journal of Entrepreneurship and Public Policy 10(1) DOI:10.1108/JEPP-06-2020-0034
“Licensing Massage Therapists in the Name of Crime” critically examines how certain regulatory efforts targeting illicit massage businesses (IMBs) have led to the unintended consequence of stigmatizing legitimate massage therapists. By promoting establishment licensing and zoning laws intended to disrupt sex trafficking, policymakers often cast a wide net that conflates all massage businesses with criminal activity. This approach disproportionately targets immigrant-owned establishments and reinforces racial stereotypes, particularly against Asian women. The paper argues that such measures frequently fail to address trafficking effectively, and instead result in over-policing of law-abiding practitioners, erosion of civil liberties, and the undermining of massage therapy as a healthcare profession. The author advocates for policy strategies that differentiate clearly between legitimate and illicit operations without harming the professional massage community, emphasizing the need for human rights-based, anti-racist, and evidence-informed approaches.
Public interest or policy diffusion: Analyzing the effects of massage therapist municipal licensing Darwyyn Dey, Kofi Ampaabeng , Conor Norris, and Edward Timmons
Policing, Regulation, and the Production of Vulnerability in the Massage Industry” shows how law enforcement and regulatory measures—intended to address illicit activity such as human trafficking in the massage industry—often end up reinforcing racialized and gendered stereotypes, especially of Asian immigrant women. Drawing from ethnographic research in Los Angeles, the study shows that policing strategies frequently rely on vague or coded markers of criminality (like signage, decor, or hours of operation), leading to heightened scrutiny of immigrant-owned massage businesses regardless of actual illegal activity. The authors argue that regulatory practices blur the line between crime prevention and moral judgment, casting suspicion on lawful massage work and contributing to structural vulnerability, exploitation, and social marginalization. Instead of enhancing safety or justice, these interventions often amplify precarity for workers already marginalized by immigration status, language barriers, and racial profiling.
Municipal Ordinances vs. Establishment Licenses: What’s the Difference?
At the local level, a municipal ordinance is a law or code enacted by a city or county council. These ordinances often create the framework for regulating businesses – including massage businesses – within the community. An establishment license (or permit) is one such regulatory mechanism: it is the permit a business must obtain (and keep) to legally operate under the rules of the ordinance. In practice, the two go hand in hand.
Ordinances are frequently used to establish local licensing requirements for massage businesses. It is important to note that the best ordinances will just reemphasize state massage licensing laws and not place any further restrictions like establishment licenses on licensed massage therapists. Massage therapists have already proven that they went to massage school, passed the licensing exam and required background and fingerprint tests. (Except for the few unlicensed states that often have city/county laws around massage.)
AMTA provides some suggestions – see Elements of a Massage Therapy Related Ordinance
Note: The American Massage Therapy Association (AMTA) says in the Elements of a Massage Therapy Related Ordinance that they do not oppose fair and reasonable establishment licensing, even though they have previously made a joint statement with ABMP about establishment licensing.
Previous Statement:
“One of the pretenses employed by traffickers to attempt to disguise their exploitation of individuals under their control is to co-opt the word ‘massage’ to describe what in fact is forced prostitution. This pretense has led numerous concerned but misguided state and local governments to create ordinances and regulations directed at legitimate practitioners of massage therapy. The result has been inappropriate burdens on licensed, educated massage therapists performing work to support clients’ health and well-being. “
Commentary
Many of these ordinances, especially those that impose local establishment licensing or extra vetting on licensed massage therapists, send the message: “Prove you’re not a sex worker.” That’s both unjust and ineffective.
Licensed massage therapists have already met state standards—education, exams, background checks. Yet local governments often treat them as if they’re guilty by association, layering on additional rules like local permits, ID badges, moral character references, dress codes, or even physician health exams. These are not required of other licensed health professionals, and they fuel the ongoing stigma that massage = sex.
The real issue is not licensed therapists—it’s the sex businesses pretending to be massage clinics. And here’s the uncomfortable truth: traffickers and sex workers in these fake businesses don’t bother getting massage licenses anyway. They fly under the radar, operate without credentials, or steal someone else’s license number. Meanwhile, legitimate massage therapists are the ones getting inspections, extra fees, and public suspicion.
Instead of punishing professionals, local governments should:
- Enforce existing laws on unlicensed practice, prostitution, and trafficking.
- Target red flag behaviors (e.g. locked doors, late-night hours, online sex ads).
- Empower code enforcement and law enforcement to investigate real indicators of criminal activity.
- Treat licensed massage therapists as partners, not suspects.
Bottom line: ordinances that demand massage therapists “prove they’re not sex workers” miss the mark. It’s time to stop regulating massage therapy like a vice industry and start regulating sex businesses that falsely use the word “massage.”
The Network Team has put together a Landlord Engagement Program where they have invited Attorney Generals from every state to join together and go after the landlords that rent to these businesses.
Also making unlicensed massage a felony rather than the civil crime that it is could help law enforcements incentives for going after these places. Oregon passed a bill last year doing just that. So why are not all states doing that?
Recommendation:
Stop with the Establishment Licensing and ordinances.
Use the title protection laws that are in effect (or create title protection laws) and ask the state board of massage (and whatever board manages the massage board ) to enforce the title protection laws.
Pass a bill making unlicensed massage a felony for first time offenders with jail time and high financial penalties.
Business licensing programs for massage therapists. Require that businesses have the license of each massage therapist on the wall of the office and a photo ID or that each massage therapist must carry photo ID that matches the license on the wall. Verify state licenses on the Board of Massage Website.
