AB 1703 amends the Business and Professions Code to tighten who may perform and advertise osteopathic services in California. It (1) adds “osteopathic manipulative treatment” (OMT) to the list of services that cannot be performed by an unlicensed person even if that person makes statutorily required disclosures, and (2) makes it a misdemeanor for anyone not licensed by the Osteopathic Medical Board of California to use the words “osteopath,” “doctor of osteopathy,” the initials “D.O.,” or otherwise imply they are a licensed osteopath or physician when offering or providing services to treat a medical or physical condition.
The changes mark a deliberate effort to protect the title and certain manual therapies associated with osteopathic physicians, shifting previously uncertain territory into explicit criminal exposure. That matters for clinicians who perform manual therapies, clinics and advertisors that use professional titles, and enforcement agencies that will be tasked with policing violations.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill amends Section 2053.5 to place osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) on the list of services excluded from the disclosure-based exception to unauthorized practice, meaning unlicensed providers cannot rely on the disclosure safe harbor to provide OMT. It also adds Section 2453.3 to prohibit unlicensed use of the terms “osteopath,” “doctor of osteopathy,” and the initials “D.O.” when offering or providing services to treat a medical or physical condition, making such use a misdemeanor.
Who It Affects
Directly affected are non‑licensed practitioners and clinicians (including some manual therapists, chiropractic and physical therapy providers) who currently perform manipulative therapies; licensed osteopathic physicians (D.O.s) whose title protection is strengthened; clinics, advertising platforms, and websites that display professional titles; and the Osteopathic Medical Board plus local prosecutors who enforce the law.
Why It Matters
The bill converts areas of professional gray‑zone practice into explicit criminal violations, raising compliance stakes for hands‑on therapy providers and marketplaces that facilitate promotion of manual‑therapy services. It narrows the safe harbor that previously allowed some non‑licensees to operate after disclosure and clarifies title usage rights for DOs.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB 1703 does two operational things that matter in practice. First, it amends the disclosure safe‑harbor provision that previously allowed certain non‑licensed people to perform some services if they complied with disclosure requirements.
The bill inserts osteopathic manipulative treatment — here defined as “the therapeutic application of manually guided forces to alleviate somatic dysfunction” — into the list of services that are explicitly excluded from that safe harbor. In short: if you are not licensed under the relevant healing‑arts law, you cannot rely on a disclosure to lawfully provide OMT.
Second, the bill creates a new, specific title‑protection misdemeanor. It bars anyone who is not licensed by the Osteopathic Medical Board of California from using the words “osteopath,” the phrase “doctor of osteopathy,” the initials “D.O.,” or otherwise indicating or implying they are a licensed osteopath or physician when offering or providing services to treat a medical or physical condition.
The statute attaches criminal liability (a misdemeanor) to violations, aligning this protection with existing prohibitions for other physician titles.Together these provisions sharpen the legal boundary around who may deliver certain manual therapies and who may present themselves as an osteopathic physician in California. The bill does not create new licensing pathways or define enforcement procedures beyond classifying title misuse as a misdemeanor; it also retains the existing advertising disclosure rule for services that remain lawful under the statute.
Finally, the measure includes a technical update to the Department of Consumer Affairs findings and a clause stating the state will not reimburse local agencies for costs tied to creating this new crime.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill adds a statutory definition of “osteopathic manipulative treatment” as “the therapeutic application of manually guided forces to alleviate somatic dysfunction.”, Section 2053.5 is amended so OMT is explicitly excluded from the disclosure‑based exception to unauthorized practice—unlicensed providers cannot lawfully perform OMT by relying on disclosure alone.
The bill creates Section 2453.3, which makes it a misdemeanor for anyone not licensed by the Osteopathic Medical Board of California to use “osteopath,” “doctor of osteopathy,” or the initials “D.O.” when offering or providing services to treat a medical or physical condition.
The advertising disclosure rule in Section 2053.5(b) remains: providers advertising services that are lawful under the statute must disclose they are not licensed as healing‑arts practitioners.
The measure includes an express finding that no state reimbursement to local agencies is required because it creates a new misdemeanor, implicating local enforcement but not triggering Article XIII B reimbursement.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
OMT removed from disclosure safe harbor
This amendment inserts a new numbered paragraph that treats osteopathic manipulative treatment the same way the statute treats surgery, administering X‑rays, prescribing legend drugs, and other higher‑risk services: unlicensed persons may not perform it even if they meet the disclosure conditions in Section 2053.6. Practically, that converts a previously ambiguous permissibility into an absolute prohibition for OMT performed by non‑licensees. For compliance officers this is the core operational change — any manual therapy labeled or functionally equivalent to OMT now carries a criminal risk if performed without the appropriate license.
Title protection: 'osteopath,' 'doctor of osteopathy,' and 'D.O.'
This new section prohibits persons not licensed by the Osteopathic Medical Board from using specific titles or initials that would indicate they are an osteopathic physician when offering or providing treatment for a medical or physical condition, and makes such use a misdemeanor. The provision narrows the universe of permissible title use to those licensed by the board; it does not carve out exceptions for out‑of‑state licensees or for use in non‑clinical contexts, which creates immediate compliance questions for employers, websites, and clinicians with varied credentials.
Advertising disclosure remains for lawful but unlicensed services
The bill leaves intact the requirement that advertisers of services that remain lawful under the statute must disclose they are not licensed as healing‑arts practitioners. That creates a split: some manual therapies are now categorically off‑limits to the unlicensed (OMT), while others may continue under disclosure—so compliance reviews of marketing materials will need to map every procedure to the updated statutory list.
Technical findings and fiscal boilerplate
The measure makes a nonsubstantive wording change to the Legislature’s findings on unlicensed activity (Section 145) and adds the standard clause stating no state reimbursement is required because the act establishes a new misdemeanor. These are housekeeping elements, but they underscore that the authors framed the changes as criminal prohibitions rather than regulatory refinements, which affects how agencies and local prosecutors will treat enforcement.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Healthcare across all five countries.
Explore Healthcare in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Licensed osteopathic physicians (D.O.s): stronger protection of professional title and of an intervention closely associated with osteopathic practice, reducing marketplace confusion and competitive pressure from unlicensed providers.
- Patients seeking osteopathic care: clearer expectations about who is authorized to provide OMT and less risk of receiving OMT from providers without osteopathic training or board oversight.
- Osteopathic Medical Board of California and medical regulators: statutory clarity that aligns title usage and a key osteopathic therapy with the board’s licensing authority, simplifying enforcement against unlicensed practice.
Who Bears the Cost
- Non‑licensed manual‑therapy providers (certain massage therapists, some chiropractors, and other hands‑on modality practitioners): increased criminal exposure if their techniques are classified or marketed as OMT or indistinguishable from it.
- Clinics, marketing firms, and digital platforms: new compliance burden to scrub listings and advertising for prohibited titles and to ensure that services described as manipulative therapies do not cross into OMT territory.
- Local prosecutors and courts: additional misdemeanor cases to investigate and adjudicate, plus related law‑enforcement activity to police title use and alleged unlicensed provision of OMT.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill seeks to protect patient safety and preserve the professional identity of osteopathic physicians by criminalizing unlicensed provision of a signature therapy and unauthorized title use; the trade‑off is that it risks criminalizing overlapping, widely used manual therapies and chilling legitimate providers and speech where technical definitions and licensing status are ambiguous.
The bill draws a bright line around OMT and osteopathic titles, but bright lines create hard questions at the margins. The statutory definition of OMT is compact and functionally focused on “manually guided forces to alleviate somatic dysfunction,” yet many legitimate manual therapies (including some chiropractic adjustments, physiotherapy manipulation, and advanced massage techniques) use overlapping language or achieve similar clinical effects.
Enforcement will therefore hinge on case‑by‑case factual determinations about technique, intent, and how services are advertised—factors that can be costly and difficult to prove.
The new title protection is administrable in obvious cases (someone advertising “D.O.” without a California osteopathic license), but it leaves open thorny scenarios: a person with a DO degree licensed in another state who treats a patient while physically in California; a practitioner whose license has lapsed; or contexts where the term “osteopath” is used historically or descriptively rather than as a clinical credential. The statute’s silence on out‑of‑state licensure and on academic or historical uses means defendants and prosecutors are likely to contest those lines in early enforcement actions.
These ambiguities raise risks of over‑enforcement, chilling of legitimate practice, and a potential surge in litigation over title meaning and scope of prohibited conduct.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.