Federal Trade Commission Staff Comment Before the Tennessee State Senate Regarding the Regulation of the Practice of Animal Massage Therapy In Tennessee

Office of Policy Planning
Bureau of Competition
Bureau of Economics
November 15, 2017
The Honorable Kerry Roberts
War Memorial Building, Suite 321
301 6 th Avenue North
Nashville, TN 37243
Dear Senator Roberts:
The staffs of the Federal Trade Commission’s Office of Policy Planning, Bureau of
Economics, and Bureau of Competition appreciate the opportunity to respond to your request for
comments on the regulation of the practice of animal massage therapy in Tennessee.1 As
described in your letter,2 animal massage therapy is currently statutorily exempted from the
definition of the practice of veterinary medicine.3 Absent legislative action, the exemption will
expire on July 1, 2018, and the Tennessee Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners may once
again determine that the practice of animal massage therapy requires a veterinary license or
veterinary supervision.4 You have requested FTC staff comments on various legislative options,5
as well as other ways Tennessee might “increase the efficiency and competitiveness of the labor
market more generally, especially concerning licensure.”6
We strongly urge the Tennessee legislature to consider making the 2017 exemption
permanent, absent evidence of a credible threat of harm that requires either licensing of animal
massage therapists, or allowing only veterinarians to perform or supervise the practice of animal
massage therapy. Indeed, letting the exemption expire appears inconsistent with current animal
health training protocols.
More generally, FTC staff have long encouraged legislatures and regulators to avoid
unnecessary occupational regulations that do not address well-evidenced public policy
concerns.7 We deeply appreciate the role that state legislators and regulators play in determining
the optimal balance of policy priorities. When citizens would be at risk of harm from services
provided by unqualified professionals, occupational regulation can ensure that professionals
maintain minimum competency levels and can be effectively disciplined for misconduct.8 Still,
licensing erects barriers to entry in a profession, which means it can significantly raise prices for
consumers and prevent otherwise qualified individuals from using their skills to earn a living.
When professional services involve little risk of harm to public health or safety, states might
safely forgo licensing and rely instead on competitive market forces to protect the public from
unqualified providers.9
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20580

2
As explained in Section III below, FTC staff are generally supportive of state-level
efforts to review and, where possible, streamline occupational regulations, consistent with
legitimate public policy goals.10 In our experience, these kinds of reforms can reduce barriers to
entry, improve competition, and thereby deliver substantial benefits to a state’s consumers.
Consistent with that experience, we suggest below a general framework for legislatures
considering reforms in this area. In Section IV, we apply this framework to the regulation of
animal massage therapy in Tennessee. We conclude that, absent well-founded public policy
concerns about the practice of animal massage therapy by people other than (or not directly
supervised by) veterinarians, the Tennessee legislature should consider making the 2017
exemption permanent.
I. 	Interest of the FTC
Competition is a core organizing principle of America’s economy.11 It gives consumers
the benefits of lower prices, higher quality goods and services, increased access to goods and
services, and greater innovation.12 The FTC works to promote competition through enforcement
of the antitrust laws, which prohibit certain transactions and business practices that harm
competition and consumers. The FTC also engages in competition advocacy to promote policies
that benefit competition and consumers, in the form of comments on proposed legislation and
regulations, discussions with regulators, court filings, and other advocacy channels.
The FTC has engaged in various advocacy efforts relating to licensing requirements for
occupations and professions over the past several decades,13 and has submitted numerous
advocacy comments to state and self-regulatory entities.14 With respect to occupational
licensing, FTC advocacies have involved such professionals as real estate brokers,15 dentists and
dental hygienists,16 nurses,17 and veterinarians. FTC staff’s veterinary advocacies have addressed
a proposed prohibition on the practice of animal teeth floating by non-veterinarians18 and
restrictions on veterinarians’ ability to advertise and enter business relationships with non-
veterinarians.19
More recently, FTC staff commented on an occupational licensing reform program in
Nebraska.20 In addition, the FTC’s Economic Liberty Task Force has begun to examine a broad
range of licensing issues, and has held roundtables on license portability across state lines and
the economic evidence regarding the costs and benefits of occupational licensing.21
II. 	Regulation of Animal Massage in Tennessee
Tennessee’s Veterinary Practice Act (the “Act”) is intended to “protect the public from
being misled by incompetent, unscrupulous and unauthorized practitioners,” in the interest of the
“health, safety and welfare of the animal population and the citizens of Tennessee.”22 The Act
defines the practice of veterinary medicine and establishes the Tennessee Board of Veterinary
Medical Examiners (the “Board”), which is empowered to “adopt reasonable rules governing the
practice of veterinary medicine.”23 Five of the Board’s seven members must be licensed
veterinarians.24

3
Under the Act’s definition, the practice of veterinary medicine means to “[d]iagnose,
treat, correct, change, alleviate, or prevent animal disease, illness, pain, deformity, defect, injury,
or other physical, dental, or mental conditions by any method or mode,”25 and includes “the use
of complementary, alternative, and integrative therapies.”26 In 2014, the Board relied on its
interpretation of this statutory definition when it enacted a regulation explicitly defining massage
therapy as the practice of veterinary medicine.27
In 2016, the Board issued warnings to two lay animal massage therapists that they were
in violation of the Act, which could warrant a fine or jail time.28 The Board asserted that animal
massage services could be provided only by a licensed veterinarian, or by a layperson employed
and supervised by a licensed veterinarian.29
The lay animal massage therapists sued the Board seeking declaratory and injunctive
relief.30 The Tennessee legislature subsequently passed a bill in April 2017 temporarily
exempting animal massage therapy from the definition of veterinary medicine, which the
governor of Tennessee approved in May 2017. The statutory exemption defines animal massage
therapy as “the manipulation of the soft tissues of the animal body with the intention of
positively affecting the health and well-being of the animal.” Under the exemption, animal
massage therapy does not include practices requiring the skill or knowledge of a veterinarian,
and as such explicitly “does not include the diagnosis, treatment, correction, alleviation, or
prevention of any animal disease, illness, pain, deformity, defect, injury, or other physical or
mental condition.”31
The exemption gave the Board an opportunity to consider alternative ways to regulate
animal massage therapy short of requiring a veterinarian license.32 FTC staff are not aware that
the Board has considered any such alternatives as ways to regulate animal massage therapy.
Absent further action by the Tennessee legislature, the exemption will expire on July 1, 2018,
and the Board again will be authorized to interpret the statutory definition of the practice of
veterinary medicine to prohibit the practice of lay animal massage therapy.
III. 	Competitive Considerations Regarding Occupational Regulation
Occupational licensing laws and regulations require government permission to enter a
particular profession, and thereby limit the number of competitors who can provide certain
services.33 Typically, occupational licensing laws specify entry requirements for a profession,
define the practices that constitute a licensed occupation, and legally authorize such practices.
Without a license, a worker cannot compete to provide services in a given field, regardless of his
or her skills and qualifications. Unlicensed practice is prohibited by statute and may be subject to
civil or criminal penalties.
In many situations, occupational licensing benefits consumers by ensuring that
practitioners meet minimum competency standards. This is particularly true for professions
involving health and safety, or in situations where it is difficult for consumers to evaluate quality
and competency. Occupational licensing also can benefit professionals by encouraging
investment in their career and skill maintenance.34 But where occupational licensing is not
justified by well-evidenced public policy concerns, such as protecting consumer health and

4
safety, licensing may erect unnecessary entry barriers. The resulting restrictions limit
competition and consumer access, resulting in potentially higher prices to consumers and
reduced incentives to innovate, while failing to provide any countervailing consumer benefits to
offset the harm to competition and consumers.
Recent studies of this area have highlighted these potential negative effects of
occupational licensing requirements that are not justified by health and safety concerns.
• 	Limiting the Supply of Professionals: By imposing specific training, certification, or
other requirements and fees on potential entrants, occupational licensing excludes those
who cannot afford these fees or the cost of completing the additional requirements. These
burdens tend to fall disproportionately on the most economically disadvantaged citizens,
and on military spouses who regularly move from state to state only to find that their new
state has different licensing requirements than their previous state.35 Additionally, in
some cases incumbent workers in the profession draft and enforce the licensing
requirements. Their interest in limiting competition may conflict with purported
consumer-oriented goals.36
• 	Raising Prices to Consumers: Several studies have found that occupational licensing can
blunt competition because it reduces the number of people working in a given field,
leading to higher prices or lower quality services.37 This means that consumers may pay
higher prices or receive lower quality services, even if they themselves do not work in a
field affected by excessive state licensing.
• 	Limiting Innovation and Entrepreneurship: Occupational regulations that mandate or,
alternatively, prohibit a particular way of providing a service may stifle innovation and
entrepreneurship.38 Over the long-term, these regulatory barriers to entry may severely
impede the flow of labor or services to where they are most in demand, potentially
reducing consumer access to valued services.39 As noted in a 2015 report on occupational
licensing: “As the labor market changes, licensing rules set down in earlier decades may
become an increasingly poor fit for the emerging occupational structure, necessitating
continuing review and updates.”40
These potential costs of occupational licensing are most troublesome when they are not
justified by consumer benefits. Although well-meaning licensing rules may be designed to
provide consumers with assurances that certain professionals meet minimum quality standards,
some studies have shown that licensing requirements do not always increase service quality,41
and may include training or educational requirements not relevant to the services a given
professional provides.42
For these reasons, FTC staff generally have urged legislators and regulators to consider
removing or relaxing excessive licensing restrictions wherever possible, consistent with
legitimate health and safety concerns. Reducing the amount of occupational licensing
requirements may promote competition, increase the supply of service providers, and benefit
consumers. Benefits can include improved access to services, lower prices, and improved service
quality. Reform may also spur innovation in how services are delivered.

5
We respectfully recommend that state legislators, regulators, and other policymakers
consider the following framework when evaluating changes to occupational licensing laws and
regulations:
• 	What legitimate policy justifications, if any, were articulated when the license
requirements originally were imposed?
• 	Are there currently any specific, legitimate, and substantiated policy objectives that
justify continuing the license requirements?
• 	If current, legitimate policy objectives are identified, does the furtherance of those
objectives likely outweigh the expected harms from licensing? Such harms may include
reduced economic opportunities, restricted employment, increases in consumer prices,
and reductions in quality or access.
• 	If state licensing appears justified, are there any less restrictive alternatives to the current
licensing system that still would address the legitimate policy objectives, while reducing
burdens on entry, competition, and the public? Are the licensing requirements narrowly
tailored to achieve the specific public policy purpose, or is there a less intrusive way to
achieve the public policy objective?
When the public benefits are slight or highly speculative, occupational licensing may not
be desirable in any form, particularly when regulation imposes non-trivial impediments to
competition. But, even when well-founded consumer protection or other concerns do exist, the
inquiry should not end there. If the restrictions are also likely to harm competition, we
respectfully suggest that policymakers consider whether the regulations could be more narrowly
tailored to minimize the burden on competition while still achieving other legitimate policy
goals. For example, in appropriate circumstances, a state could adopt a certification system in
lieu of licensing, which could allow consumers to choose between a certified, but potentially
higher-priced professional, and a lower-priced, noncertified professional.43
For these reasons, we recommend that Tennessee maintain only those occupational
licensing requirements necessary to address well-founded public health and safety concerns.
IV. 	Application of the Competitive Framework to the Regulation of Animal
Massage in Tennessee
Turning specifically to the regulation of animal massage therapy, FTC staff strongly urge
the Tennessee legislature to consider whether the regulation of animal massage therapy is
necessary to address well-founded public policy concerns. If not, the legislature should make
permanent the current exemption of animal massage therapy from the definition of veterinary
medicine.

6
As the legislature considers the limited body of publicly available evidence regarding the
practice of animal massage therapy, FTC staff encourages the legislature to take note of the
following observations:
• 	Legislative Intent: Based on our understanding of the context underlying the existing
regulation, it is not clear that the legislature intended the definition of the practice of
veterinary medicine to be so broadly interpreted as to capture animal massage therapy.44
Indeed, the record of the legislative hearings indicates that some legislators expressed
concerns about the definition’s broad scope.45
• 	Requiring a Veterinary License to Practice Animal Massage Is Inconsistent with Relevant
Training and Certification Protocols in Tennessee: Training in animal massage therapy is
not a prerequisite to graduate from the University of Tennessee College of Veterinary
Medicine.46 Moreover, an animal massage therapy certificate program offered by The
University of Tennessee does not require a license to practice veterinary medicine (or
concurrent enrollment in veterinary school). Rather, that certificate program is available
to veterinary technicians, as well as animal trainers, animal handlers, and others who can
legally provide certain animal care services without the supervision of a licensed
veterinarian.47 This is consistent with the requirements for a national animal massage
certification program, which also does not require a veterinary license.48 Therefore,
returning to a regime that would require a veterinary license (or supervision by a
veterinarian) in order to provide animal massage services appears inconsistent with
relevant training and certification programs available to Tennessee professionals.
• 	Lack of Public Policy Concern: We are unaware of any evidence that, prior to regulation,
the practice of animal massage therapy raised substantial public policy concerns. As you
note in your letter, the Board acknowledged that it never sustained disciplinary actions
relating to animal massage therapy or received consumer complaints about lack of
regulation of this profession.49
• 	Potential Harm from Regulation: If the exemption is not made permanent, and if the
Board once again were to interpret the definition of the practice of veterinary medicine to
include animal massage therapy, this action by the Board would create a significant
barrier to the provision of animal massage therapy services. It would limit the practice to
licensed veterinarians or those employed and supervised by licensed veterinarians, thus
excluding specialized lay animal massage therapists who currently provide these services
– and who appear to do so safely and effectively, consistent with their training and
experience, potentially at a lower price. Moreover, veterinary programs may not even
offer instruction on animal massage, which means that veterinarians providing animal
massage therapy services (or supervising others providing such services) may be less
skilled than specialized lay animal massage therapists.
Likewise, supervision requirements would impose additional costs on lay therapists,
which likely would be passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices, as well as
giving veterinarians the ability to exclude potential competitors from the market. FTC
staff previously have raised concerns with similar supervision requirements, noting that

7
they can raise concerns of bias and conflict of interest, raise costs, and frustrate efforts at
innovation.50
• 	Availability of Less Restrictive Alternative: The 2017 exemption included a compromise
that appears less restrictive while still addressing potential policy concerns. While the
exemption removed animal massage from the definition of the practice of veterinary
medicine, it also explicitly excluded the diagnosis, treatment, correction, alleviation, or
prevention of disease or illness from the definition of animal massage therapy.51
If, after a thorough review of the evidence, the Tennessee legislature determines that
some level of regulation is necessary, FTC staff strongly encourage the legislature to clearly
identify specific public policy goals and use narrowly tailored regulations to achieve those goals,
while imposing the fewest possible restrictions on competition.
V. 	Conclusion
For the reasons described above, FTC staff urge the Tennessee legislature to carefully
consider the procompetitive benefits of maintaining the current exemption of animal massage
therapy from the definition of the practice of veterinary medicine. More generally, we encourage
the legislature to maintain only the level of occupational regulation necessary to address well-
evidenced public policy concerns. As explained above, competition in professional services
marketplaces typically benefits consumers, while excessive occupational regulation can leave
consumers worse off.
We appreciate this opportunity to present our views.
Respectfully submitted,
Tara Isa Koslov, Acting Director
Office of Policy Planning
Michael G. Vita, Acting Director
Bureau of Economics
Bruce Hoffman, Acting Director
Bureau of Competition

8
1 This letter expresses the views of the FTC’s Office of Policy Planning, Bureau of Competition, and Bureau of
Economics. The letter does not necessarily represent the views of the FTC or any individual Commissioner. The
Commission, however, has voted to authorize staff to submit this comment.
2 Letter from Kerry Roberts, Tennessee State Senator, to Tara Isa Koslov, Acting Director, Office of Policy
Planning, Fed. Trade Comm’n (Sept. 7, 2017) [hereinafter Request Letter].
3 See TENN. CODE A NN. § 63-12-133(d) (2017) (“For the purposes of this chapter, the practice of veterinary medicine
does not include massage therapy to animals, which means the manipulation of the soft tissues of the animal body
with the intention of positively affecting the health and well-being of the animal. This therapy does not include the
diagnosis, treatment, correction, alleviation, or prevention of any animal disease, illness, pain, deformity, defect,
injury, or other physical or mental condition.”).
4 See TENN. CODE A NN. §§ 63-12-133(a)(6), (d) (2017).
5 According to your letter, you anticipate that the Tennessee legislature will consider at least three options during the
legislative session that starts on January 1, 2018: (1) making the current exemption permanent; (2) allowing the
exemption to expire so that the practice of animal massage therapy again could be interpreted to constitute the
practice of veterinary medicine; or (3) creating a specialty license for animal massage therapy. Request Letter at 1-2.
6 See Request Letter at 5.
7 Links to many of the FTC’s materials on occupational licensing can be found at
https://www.ftc.gov/policy/advocacy/economic-liberty/selected-advocacy-relating-occupational-licensing.
8 Physicians, for example, require licensure because an unqualified doctor might do great harm to the public.
9 For example, in an age of online review sites and message boards, prospective consumers have opportunities to
evaluate the quality of service providers and make informed purchasing decisions, often without assistance from the
government.
10 Indeed the competitive effects of occupational regulation are of such importance to the FTC that in March 2017
the agency announced a special Economic Liberty Task Force dedicated to its study. See
https://www.ftc.gov/policy/advocacy/economic-liberty.
11 See, e.g., N.C. State Bd. of Dental Exam’rs v. FTC, 135 S. Ct. 1101, 1109 (2015) (“Federal antitrust law is a
central safeguard for the Nation’s free market structures.”); Standard Oil Co. v. FTC, 340 U.S. 231, 248 (1951)
(“The heart of our national economic policy long has been faith in the value of competition.”).
12 See, e.g., Nat’l Soc’y of Prof’l Eng’rs v. United States, 435 U.S. 679, 695 (1978) (noting that the antitrust laws
reflect “a legislative judgment that ultimately competition will produce not only lower prices, but also better goods
and services. . . . The assumption that competition is the best method of allocating resources in a free market
recognizes that all elements of a bargain—quality, service, safety, and durability—and not just the immediate cost,
are favorably affected by the free opportunity to select among alternative offers.”).
13 See, e.g., FTC S TAFF , P OLICY P ERSPECTIVES : COMPETITION AND THE R EGULATION OF A DVANCED P RACTICE
N URSES (2014) [hereinafter POLICY P ERSPECTIVES ], http://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/reports/policy-
perspectives-competition-regulation-advanced-practice-nurses/140307aprnpolicypaper.pdf; CAROLYN COX & S USAN
F OSTER , BUREAU OF ECON., F ED. TRADE COMM’ N, THE COSTS AND B ENEFITS OF O CCUPATIONAL REGULATION
(1990), https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/reports/costs-benefits-occupational-regulation/cox_foster_-
_occupational_licensing.pdf.
14 Many of these advocacy comments can be found at http://www.ftc.gov/policy/advocacy/advocacy-filings.
15 FTC and Department of Justice Comment to Governor Jennifer M. Granholm Concerning Michigan H.B. 4416 to
Impose Certain Minimum Service Requirements on Real Estate Brokers (2007),
https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/advocacy_documents/ftc-and-department-justice-comment-
governor-jennifer-m.grahholm-concerning-michigan-h.b.4416-impose-certain-minimum-service-requirements-real-
estate-brokers/v050021.pdf.

9
16See, e.g., FTC Staff Letter to NC Representative Stephen LaRoque Concerning NC House Bill 698 and the
Regulation of Dental Service Organizations and the Business Organization of Dental Practices (2012),
http://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/advocacy_documents/ftc-staff-letter-nc-representative-stephen-
laroque-concerning-nc-house-bill-698-and-regulation/1205ncdental.pdf; FTC Staff Comment Before the Maine
Board of Dental Examiners Concerning Proposed Rules to Allow Independent Practice Dental Hygienists to Take
X-Rays in Underserved Areas (2011), http://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/advocacy_documents/ftc-
staff-comment-maine-board-dental-examiners-concerning-proposed-rules-allow-independent-
practice/111125mainedental.pdf.
17 Many of the individual advocacy comments regarding nursing restrictions, along with the research and analyses
underlying these comments, are described in POLICY P ERSPECTIVES , supra note 13.
18 FTC Staff Comment Before the Texas Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners Concerning Rule 573.17
Regarding Animal Teeth Floating (2010),
https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/advocacy_documents/ftc-comment-texas-board-veterinary-
medical-examiners-concerning-rule-573.17-regarding-animal-teeth-floating/100910texasteethfloating.pdf.
19 FTC Staff Comment Before the Virginia Board of Veterinary Medicine Concerning Regulations to Remove
Restrictions on Advertising and Non-Veterinarian Relationships (1986),
http://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/advocacy_documents/ftc-staff-comment-virginia-board-veterinary-
medicine-concerning-regulations-remove-restrictions/p864641.pdf.
20 FTC Staff Comments to the Nebraska State Senate Regarding a Number of Proposed Senate Bills that Would
Loosen or Eliminate Certain Occupational Licensing Requirements in Nebraska (2017),
https://www.ftc.gov/policy/policy-actions/advocacy-filings/2017/03/ftc-staff-comments-nebraska-state-senate-
regarding.
21 See generally https://www.ftc.gov/policy/advocacy/economic-liberty (includes links to task force events).
22 TENN. CODE A NN. § 62-12-102 (2017).
23 TENN. CODE A NN. § 63- 12-104 (2017); § 63-12-106 (2017).
24 TENN. CODE A NN. § 63- 12-104(a), (b) (2017).
25 TENN. CODE A NN. § 63-12-103(10)(A)(i) (2017).
26 TENN. CODE A NN. § 63-12-103(10)(A)(i)(b) (2017).
27 See Tenn. Comp. R. & Regs. 1730-01-.02(2), http://share.tn.gov/sos/rules/1730/1730-01.20140821.pdf.
28 The Board warned that the unlicensed practice of veterinary medicine constitutes a Class B misdemeanor in
Tennessee, subject to a fine up to $500 and up to six months in jail for each offense. TENN. CODE A NN . §§ 63-12-
119, 40-35-111(e)(2) (2017); see also Stowe v. Tennessee Bd. of Veterinary Med. Exam’rs, No. M-232-IV, 16
(Tenn. Ch. Court, Mar. 9, 2017).
29 See Stowe v. Tennessee Bd. of Veterinary Med. Exam’rs, No. M-232-IV, 16-17 (Tenn. Ch. Court, Mar. 9, 2017).
30 See Stowe v. Tennessee Bd. of Veterinary Med. Exam’rs, No. M-232-IV (Tenn. Ch. Court, Mar. 9, 2017).
31 See Senate Bill 849, http://publications.tnsosfiles.com/acts/110/pub/pc0274.pdf. The exemption was codified at
TENN. CODE A NN. § 62-12-133(d) (2017).
32 See http://tnga.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=354&clip_id=13659, Sen. Roberts, S.B. 849 (April 19,
2017).
33 See, e.g., George J. Stigler, The Theory of Economic Regulation, 2 BELL J. ECON. & MGMT. S CI. 3, 13 (1971)
(“The licensing of occupations is a possible use of the political process to improve the economic circumstances of a
group. The license is an effective barrier to entry because occupational practice without the license is a criminal
offense.”).

10
34 See D EPT. OF THE TREASURY , COUNCIL OF ECONOMIC A DVISERS , AND D EPT. OF LABOR , O CCUPATIONAL
LICENSING: A F RAMEWORK FOR P OLICYMAKERS 6, 7 (2015),
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/docs/licensing_report_final_nonembargo.pdf.
35 See, e.g., MORRIS M. K LEINER , THE H AMILTON P ROJECT, REFORMING O CCUPATIONAL LICENSING P OLICIES 6, 13-
14 (2015), https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/THP_KleinerDiscPaper_final.pdf; D ICK M.
CARPENTER II, P H.D., LISA K NEPPER , A NGELA C. ERICKSON , AND J OHN K. ROSS , LICENSE TO W ORK: A N ATIONAL
S TUDY OF B URDENS FROM O CCUPATIONAL L ICENSING 6-7, 14 (2012), http://ij.org/wp-
content/uploads/2015/04/licensetowork1.pdf (one study found that for a subset of low and moderate-income jobs,
the average license required around nine months of education and training).
36 The FTC has brought several enforcement actions to challenge incumbent professionals’ efforts to limit
competition from lower-cost providers through manipulation of occupational regulations. See N.C. State Bd. of
Dental Exam’rs, 135 S. Ct. 1101 (2015). See also In re South Carolina State Bd. of Dentistry, Complaint (2003)
(Dkt. No. 9311), https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/cases/2003/09/socodentistcomp.pdf; In re South
Carolina State Bd. of Dentistry, Opinion of the Commission (2004) (Dkt. No. 9311),
https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/cases/2004/07/040728commissionopinion.pdf.
37 See, e.g., MORRIS M. K LEINER , THE H AMILTON P ROJECT, REFORMING O CCUPATIONAL LICENSING P OLICIES 6, 15
(2015) (explaining that occupational licensing can result in price increases by as much as 33 percent),
https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/THP_KleinerDiscPaper_final.pdf. Dr. Kleiner estimated
the cost to consumers at over $200 billion dollars annually nationwide. Id. (see endnote 3 on page 28 for
methodology used to make this calculation).
38 For example, restrictive licensing requirements may affect a professional’s ability to telework or to serve
customers across state lines, even when otherwise feasible. See D EPT. OF THE TREASURY, COUNCIL OF E CONOMIC
A DVISERS , AND D EPT. OF LABOR , O CCUPATIONAL LICENSING: A F RAMEWORK F OR P OLICYMAKERS 12-13, 28-33
(2015) (“entrepreneurs in new areas that overlap with a licensed occupation – such as someone who is creating a
website to enable consumers to take legal action – may find themselves required to hold a license because a small
part of their work overlaps with that of another licensed occupation. In this case, the web entrepreneur may be
required to hold a law license.”),
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/docs/licensing_report_final_nonembargo.pdf.
39See generally P OLICY P ERSPECTIVES , supra note 13, at 2, 20-26.
40 See D EPT. OF THE TREASURY , COUNCIL OF ECONOMIC A DVISERS , AND D EPT. OF LABOR , O CCUPATIONAL
LICENSING: A F RAMEWORK F OR P OLICYMAKERS 28 (2015),
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/docs/licensing_report_final_nonembargo.pdf.
41 See, e.g., Morris M. Kleiner & Robert T. Kurdle, Does Regulation Affect Economic Outcomes: The Case of
Dentistry, 43 J. LAW & ECON. 547, 570 (2000) (“Overall, our results show that licensing does not improve dental
health outcomes as measured by our sample of dental recruits. Moreover, treatment quality does not appear to
improve significantly on the basis of the reduced cost of malpractice insurance or a lower complaint rate against
dentists, where regulation is more stringent.”); COX & F OSTER , supra note 13, at 21-29.
42 For example, in Arkansas, hair braiders were required to attend cosmetology schools that did not even teach hair
braiding as a condition of obtaining a license. See Jenni Bergal, A License to Braid Hair? Critics Say Licensing
Rules Have Gone too Far, STATELINE, P EW CHARITABLE T RUSTS (Jan. 30, 2015),
http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2015/1/30/a-license-to-braid-hair-critics-say-
state-licensing-rules-have-gone-too-far. Arkansas ultimately changed its law to deregulate hair braiding. See A.C.A.
17-26-504 (2017).
43 See, e.g., COX & F OSTER , supra note 13, at viii-ix. Moreover, less restrictive alternatives, including professional
registries, mandatory disclosure requirements, and third party provision of quality information, may achieve many of
the same benefits. Id. at 49-51.
44 As we understand it, the current definition, under which the Board promulgated its animal massage regulation,
was enacted in 2010 in response to a legal decision finding that the Board had exceeded its authority by including
artificial insemination and pregnancy testing within the scope of the practice of veterinary medicine. See Request

11
Letter at 2-3; see also id. at 3 (a representative from the Tennessee Veterinary Medical Association explained that
the bill was intended to focus on pregnancy testing).
45 See http://tnga.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=77&clip_id=2584&meta_id=41902, Rep. Dennis, House
Bill 3491 (Mar. 15, 2010) [hereinafter Legislative Record].
46 Licensure as a veterinarian in Tennessee requires completion of a competitive, time consuming, and costly
veterinary medicine program, but does not require completion of coursework on animal massage. See Tennessee
Board of Veterinary Medicine’s Rules 1730-01-.04 & .05 (Qualifications and Procedures for Licensure),
http://publications.tnsosfiles.com/rules/1730/1730-01.20140821.pdf; TENN. CODE A NN. § 63-12-112 (2017).
Similarly, the American Veterinary Medical Association does not require graduates of AVMA-accredited veterinary
schools to demonstrate knowledge of, or proficiency in, animal massage. See generally About Accreditation,
AVMA, https://www.avma.org/ProfessionalDevelopment/Education/Accreditation/Colleges/Pages/about-
accred.aspx.
47 See University of Tennessee Certificate Program in Canine Manual Therapy [CCMT], CCMT Course Details,
https://www.utvetce.com/ccmt-details (veterinary medicine license not a prerequisite for program; course available
to veterinary technicians and physical therapists).
48 See National Board of Certification for Animal Acupressure and Massage National Examination (NBCAAM),
http://www.nbcaam.org/images/NBCAAM_Information3.pdf (certification does not require license in veterinary
medicine; does require 200 hours of course education to include “at least 50 hours of training in anatomy &
physiology, kinesiology (for bodywork) and pathologies…[minimum] 50 hours of supervised in class hands-on
work, which would include assessment and execution of bodywork skill being studied, benefits of
massage/acupressure, and practice guidelines” and minimum 100 hours of additional coursework on animal
behavior, ethics, animal handling, and bio-security).
49 Legislative Record, supra note 45, at 3-4.
50 See e.g., FTC Staff Comment to the Professional Licensure Division of the Iowa Department of Public Health
Regarding – In the Proposed New Rules of the Iowa Board of Physician Assistants – the Definition of Physician
Supervision of a Physician Assistant (2016), https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/advocacy_documents/ftc-
staff-comment-professional-licensure-division-iowa-department-public-health-regarding-
proposed/v170002_ftc_staff_comment_to_iowa_dept_of_public_health_12-21-16.pdf.
51 See TENN. CODE A NN. § 63-12-133(d) (2017).