AB 625 rewrites Section 7316 to tighten and reframe what counts as barbering, cosmetology, skin care, nail care, hairstyling, electrolysis, threading, and natural hair braiding. The bill explicitly excludes ‘‘natural hair braiding’’ and ‘‘threading’’ from the regulated practices, but it also says that if a braider performs services that fall inside the regulated definitions (for example, applying dyes or other reactive chemicals), that person must hold the applicable barbering or cosmetology license.
The bill also adds a handful of operational rules: it defines electrolysis to include thermolysis and limits the technique to electric-needle use; it requires establishments offering threading to provide consumer notice about incidental eyebrow trimming and the practitioner’s licensure status; and it modernizes hairstyling language to cover current methods and all hair textures. For practitioners, regulators, and training programs, those changes reshape where the licensing line is drawn and what activities trigger board oversight.
At a Glance
What It Does
AB 625 revises statutory definitions across barbering, cosmetology, skin care, nail care, hairstyling, electrolysis, threading, and natural hair braiding, excluding braiding and threading from the regulated practices unless the braiding is combined with regulated procedures. It requires notice to consumers at establishments offering threading and clarifies electrolysis techniques covered.
Who It Affects
Licensed barbers and cosmetologists, unlicensed natural hair braiders, threading technicians, salons and braiding studios, cosmetology schools, and the Board that enforces barbering/cosmetology licensing rules are directly affected.
Why It Matters
The bill redraws the practical boundary between unlicensed cultural hairstyling practices and licensed cosmetology/barber work, altering both enforcement priorities and business decisions for small entrepreneurs who braid or thread. It also imposes narrow consumer-notice obligations that establishments must adopt.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB 625 is primarily a definitional cleanup with a regulatory lever: it states, in detail, what constitutes barbering and cosmetology (listing shaving, cutting, chemical treatments, scalp and facial applications, nail work, and so on) and then separates out a set of services it does not regard as the practice of barbering or cosmetology. The clearest carve-out is ‘‘natural hair braiding,’’ described as twisting, wrapping, weaving, extending, locking, or braiding by hand or mechanical device when those services do not include haircutting or the application of dyes, reactive chemicals, or other preparations intended to change color or structure.
Crucially, the bill does not leave braiding entirely outside the law: it makes a conditional rule. If a person provides natural hairstyling that bundles braiding with any of the regulated services defined for barbering or cosmetology — for example, chemical relaxers, dyeing, or haircutting — that person must hold the relevant barbering or cosmetology license.
That creates a bright but conditional compliance trigger: braiding alone can remain an unlicensed trade, but add a regulated procedure and the licensing clock starts.The measure also deals with a couple of adjacent practices. It defines threading as the manual removal of hair by twisting thread and requires establishments offering threading to notify consumers about incidental eyebrow trimming and the practitioner’s licensure status.
Electrolysis is defined narrowly as hair removal by an electric needle and explicitly covers thermolysis methods. Finally, the statute updates the term ‘‘hairstyling’’ to capture ‘‘all textures’’ and ‘‘standard methods that are current at the time,’’ signaling that enforcement and scope should track evolving techniques and tools.Taken together, these changes reduce uncertainty for braiders who do not perform chemical or cutting services while creating a clear compliance point for anyone who mixes braiding with regulated treatments.
For regulators and training providers, the bill forces a rethink of inspection checklists, curricula, and outreach so that cultural services like braiding and threading are treated consistently with the statute’s new definitions.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill explicitly excludes ‘‘natural hair braiding’’ from barbering and cosmetology when the service does not include haircutting, dyes, or reactive chemicals.
A person who provides natural hairstyling that includes any regulated barbering or cosmetology procedures must obtain and maintain the applicable barbering or cosmetology license.
AB 625 defines threading as hair removal by twisting thread and requires establishments offering threading to provide consumer notice about incidental eyebrow trimming and the practitioner’s licensure status.
Electrolysis is limited to hair removal using an electric needle and the bill explicitly includes thermolysis under that definition.
The law modernizes ‘‘hairstyling’’ to cover all hair textures and ‘‘standard methods that are current at the time,’’ signaling the statute should encompass new nonchemical devices and techniques.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Defines barbering activities
Subsection (a) lists the activities the statute treats as barbering: shaving/trimming beards, cutting hair, facial and scalp massage/treatments, hair chemical and thermal treatments, and application of cosmetic preparations. For enforcement this matters because it reaffirms that both manual and mechanical appliances used for scalp/face treatments fall within the barbering scope, so inspectors and licensees cannot rely on an outdated, narrow picture of barber work.
Cosmetology, skin care, and nail care definitions
These subdivisions enumerate cosmetology practices (from permanent waving to nail work), skin care that stops short of tissue ablation, and nail services. The practical implication is twofold: training curricula must map directly to these lists, and businesses offering services that match any item must ensure staff meet licensing requirements. The skin care language also draws a medical line by excluding procedures that ablate or destroy live tissue, which helps separate esthetics from medical dermatology.
Exemptions for natural hair braiding and conditional licensure
Subdivision (e) provides explicit exclusions—most notably natural hair braiding and threading—while (f) creates the conditional rule that combines exemption with a licensing trigger: if braiding is performed together with regulated barbering or cosmetology services, the braider must hold the appropriate license. That mechanism allows braiders to operate without a cosmetology license so long as they do not perform regulated chemical or cutting procedures, but it places a compliance burden on any establishment that offers both types of services.
Electrolysis defined to include thermolysis
This short subsection confines electrolysis to hair removal by an electric needle and explicitly includes thermolysis. For practitioners and enforcement, that narrows the technical method covered by the statute and signals that laser- or light-based hair removal is not electrolysis under this definition, which affects licensing, training, and consumer warnings.
Hairstyling, threading, and natural hairstyling clarified
The bill modernizes ‘‘hairstyling’’ to include styling of all textures and current standard methods, defines ‘‘natural hair braiding’’ as a manual or mechanical braiding technique that excludes chemical or cutting processes, and restates threading as manual hair removal with incidental eyebrow trimming. That package seeks to eliminate confusion where braiding and typical hairstyling overlap, but it also creates places—like ‘‘current methods’’—where regulators will need to interpret whether a new device or technique fits inside or outside the regulated box.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Employment across all five countries.
Explore Employment 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
- Unlicensed natural hair braiders: The statutory exclusion gives braiders clearer legal footing to operate without cosmetology licenses so long as they do not perform cutting or chemical treatments.
- Small braiding studios and sole-practitioner entrepreneurs: Reduced licensing friction for pure braiding services lowers startup cost and regulatory barriers for culturally specific businesses.
- Consumers seeking braiding and threading: Clearer definitions and the explicit requirement for establishment notice on threading improve transparency about what services require a licensed practitioner.
Who Bears the Cost
- Cosmetologists and barbers offering hybrid services: Practitioners who combine braiding with color, relaxers, or cutting must ensure licensure and potentially expand their training, increasing compliance costs.
- Training schools and apprenticeship programs: Curricula and certification paths may need revision to reflect the conditional triggers and to prepare students for mixed-service practices.
- Regulatory agencies (Board of Barbering and Cosmetology): The board will face interpretation and enforcement work—deciding what counts as ‘‘current methods’’ or a bundled service—and may need additional guidance or resources.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central trade-off is between protecting public health through licensing (ensuring certain scalp, chemical, and hair procedures are performed by trained, regulated professionals) and removing regulatory barriers that would criminalize or economically disadvantage culturally specific, low‑barrier trades like natural hair braiding; the bill solves for both in part, but the conditional licensure trigger and broad, evolving language about ‘‘current methods’’ leave regulators and businesses to reconcile safety standards with accessibility.
The bill draws a functional boundary between cultural hairstyling and licensed cosmetology by exempting pure braiding while flagging any bundling of regulated services as a licensure trigger. That approach reduces licensing burdens for some practitioners but imports compliance complexity: inspectors must determine whether a particular service session included a regulated procedure, and businesses must document staff qualifications and the exact scope of each appointment.
The statute’s modernization language—‘‘standard methods that are current at the time’’—is helpful for futureproofing but relocates discretion to regulators about whether a new device or nonchemical technique is within the licensed realm.
Another implementation issue is the bill’s consumer-notice language for threading. The text requires establishments to notify consumers about incidental eyebrow trimming and the practitioner’s licensure status, but it does not prescribe form, placement, or enforcement mechanisms for that notice.
Absent clear rules, compliance will vary and consumers may receive uneven protections. Finally, the statute draws a medical/esthetic line by excluding procedures that result in tissue ablation, but it does not define borderline procedures—microdermabrasion, aggressive peels, or device-based exfoliation may invite contested classifications and enforcement disputes.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.