Kentucky bill would let cities regulate massage businesses to target illicit operations

Sen. Shelley Funke Froehmeyer told the interim judiciary committee she introduced Senate Bill 132 after learning a massage parlor was operating across from a school and raised concerns about underage workers and possible human trafficking. "I'm very concerned that we tackle every little thing we can to reduce the appetite for these illegal activities and that we reduce the appetite that puts our young girls and our young boys vulnerable to this trade," she said.

Emma Wilson of the Kentucky League of Cities told the committee the legislation is not meant to change who is licensed to practice massage therapy but to give local governments the tools they already exercise for other businesses. "This legislation is not about allowing cities to regulate the professional practices of legitimate licensed massage therapists," she said, outlining that the bill would expressly permit local zoning, inspections, advertising restrictions, hours and sanitation rules to help distinguish legitimate therapy from illicit operations.

A second presenter described strengthening criminal penalties: the bill would treat each unlicensed massage as a separate offense and raise the top penalty to a class A misdemeanor, aligning massage with other statutes involving close touching of the body. Presenters repeatedly stressed that trafficking victims would have affirmative defenses (duress, coercion, human‑trafficking defenses) and said the proposal is intended to provide local enforcement options without criminalizing victims.

Several members praised the bill’s aim but pressed authors to tighten language so local rules do not conflict with state‑level professional licensing. Representative Roberts asked whether subsection language could inadvertently allow different professional standards across municipalities, and witnesses said they are willing to work with the committee to clarify that the state retains licensure authority while localities regulate business operations.

The committee did not take a vote on SB 132 at this session; sponsors said they would refine drafting to address members’ concerns before next session.