Americans are experiencing a growing national trend toward government prohibiting them from working or starting a business without first asking permission—even if they aren’t posing any health or safety threat to the public. Over 60 years ago, only one in 20 American workers was required to get permission from the government to do their jobs. But today, over 25 percent of American workers are subject to occupational licensing.10 While fewer than 30 occupations are licensed in all 50 states (most of which are in the medical, dental, and mental health professions), over half of all state-licensed occupations are licensed in only one state—occupations including graphic designers, audio engineers, braille instructors, and travel agents.11 In other words, many of these licenses are not serving a legitimate public safety need and have not been adapted to suit the modern economy. Too often, when approaching a new business, government asks “How do we regulate?” without first considering “Should we regulate?”

This is especially true in the cosmetology industry. Laws that impose one-size-fits-all licensing structures may be well intentioned, but unreasonably applying old rules governing established practices to new businesses can stifle innovation. Governments can, of course, regulate professions, but any occupational licensing law that restricts a person from practicing a trade must have a rational relationship to a legitimate public interest.12 While it may make sense to require a license for stylists who cut, color, perm, or otherwise permanently change the structure of the hair, requiring blow-dry stylists to get cosmetology licenses does not protect the public health and safety—after all, Americans sham-poo, blow-dry, and style hair in their homes all the time without any special training. So why do states like Arizona require more hours of training to use a curling iron than to become an emergency medical technician or security guard?13

When people are required to spend the time and money to get an occupational license, they generally want to offer their customers the full extent of services allowed under that license. In the case of the cosmetology industry, some states offer a hairstyling license where a person can cut, dye, and otherwise alter the structure of a client’s hair. Most of these license holders choose to cut and dye hair, as those are the most profitable services they can perform, as well as the most their license permits them to do. Seldom do those with a hairstyling license only wash and dry a person’s hair. In other words, stylists with 1,000-hour hairstyling licenses are overqualified to merely wash and dry hair, without providing other services. This can lead to a shortage of employees willing to work in blow-dry salons. With demand rising, businesses may struggle to find licensed cosmetologists willing to work at the bottom of their occupational licenses.

Licensing hour requirements vary greatly from state to state for no clear reason. According to a study by American Institutes for Research, there is little correlation between an increase of program hours and an increase state licensing exam passage rates.14 The same can be said for the correlation between longer schooling requirements and a decrease in health and safety concerns for practicing cosmetologists.15 Nationally, the minimum requirement of training hours for a full cosmetology licenses range from 1,000 hours (lowest) in Massachusetts and New York to 2,300-hour minimum requirements (highest) in Oregon. There is no conclusive proof that increased hours of educational curriculum leads to high-er state exam passage rates.16

Applying cosmetology rules to blow-dry stylists—laws that were never intended for their practice—is irrational and keeps such stylists from earning an honest living. As explained below, many aspiring blow-dry stylists cannot afford to obtain a costly and time-consuming cosmetology license just to wash and dry hair. The rules also keep customers from getting simple blow-dry and styling services without visiting a full salon (and paying full salon pric-es).

To be sure, a license does not ensure that a stylist will be good at their job or even properly trained. Blow-dry salons train their employees, and the salons must adhere to state sanitary and safety standards. Yet removing the licensure requirement for blow-dry stylists does not prevent a blow-dry stylist from pursu-ing a full cosmetology license, nor does it stop a customer from patronizing only those stylists who have obtained government permission. It simply allows consenting and informed adults to make the decision for themselves. The individual preferences of stylists and consumers should not dictate law, especially when law turns innocuous and consensual activity into a crime.

That is why there have been significant efforts to reform Arizona’s occupational licensing for cosmetology, and several procedures on par with blow-drying hair no longer require a license in Arizona. For example, for the past 14 years, Arizona has not required people who braid hair professionally to get a license.17 And since 2011, after practitioners challenged the Board of Cosmetology’s unreasonable regulations in court, eyebrow threaders do not need an occupational license to shape eyebrows by removing hair with a cotton string.18 Most recently, makeup artists have also been exempted from the cosmetology license. The law had previously required a cosmetology license for people who apply makeup for compensation, but had exempted makeup artists who apply makeup to help sell the product, and those who worked in film, theater, or the medical field.19 Braiding hair, plucking eyebrows, and applying makeup—activities that people do at home every day—are no longer subject to burdensome occupational licensure requirements in Arizona. Why should blow-drying hair be any different?

Indeed, Arizona currently exempts from the licensure requirement (and the Board’s supervision) people who are demonstrating products for sale.20 From mall kiosks to large retail chains, workers without state-mandated training and Board supervision use hot tools on the public. If allowing retailers to wield hot tools on peo-ple to demonstrate a product does not threat-en the public’s health and safety, then neither does allowing blow-dry salon employees to do so. Indeed, even more invasive activities such as tattooing, which involves piercing the dermis layer of the skin to insert pigments, require no license in Arizona. Instead, state law simply requires that all tools be sterilized and then allows consenting adults (or minors with permission from their parents) to decide for themselves.21

Cosmetology licensure schemes are often applied unevenly, without regard for the relative risks posed by the practice or consumers’ ability to weigh those risks and benefits to suit their individual preferences. When the legislature does not address these mismatches, entrepreneurs must spend years and thousands of dollars seeking refuge from the courts against regulations that were not even crafted with their practice in mind.

Such was the fate of Lauren Boice, a cancer survivor and former hospice nurse assistant who discovered there is a therapeutic value to cosmetology services, even for those who do not leave the home. She established Angels on Earth Home Beauty to connect the elderly and terminally ill with independent, licensed cosmetologists who could perform haircuts, manicures, or massages for them right in their homes.22

Lauren herself did not practice cosmetology or treat clients; her business merely provided a means of communication between homebound customers and licensed cosmetologists. Yet the Arizona Board of Cosmetology threatened to shut down Lauren’s business and subject her to fines and even jail time unless she complied with a host of cosmetology regulations designed for beauty salons, not people booking home visits. The Board even demanded she open a physical salon location, although her homebound clients would never have the opportunity to step foot inside.23 Boice was ultimately victorious, but she spent years battling the Board in and out of court just to arrive at the commonsense conclusion that a cosmetology board doesn’t have the power to regulate a phone dispatch business. Without legislative reform, blow-dry stylists will be likewise forced to turn to the courts.