In late March 2025, Utah passed SB 48, effective May 7, 2025, a law which clarified that only licensed mental health professionals may diagnose or treat mental health conditions or emotional disorders. Life coaches remain unlicensed and may continue to operate; as long as they stay clearly in the coaching lane. Coaches who cross into diagnosing, treating trauma, undermining medical advice, or implying therapy can be fined or sanctioned.
This law did not license coaches. Rather, it reinforces the scope of licensed therapists by drawing a firm legal line: coaches may not perform therapy, and the state is empowered to rigorously enforce that boundary.
✔️ Clear boundaries; and risks: As a coach, you may not diagnose mental health disorders such as anxiety, trauma, or depression.
You may not claim to treat emotional disorders or mental conditions.
If your coaching drifts into therapy, regulators can now issue administrative fines or discipline.
✔️ What remains permissible: You may coach clients on goal‑setting, habits, productivity, mindset, or developmental challenges.
You may help with overwhelm, procrastination, imposter syndrome, uncertainty, performance fears; provided messaging avoids clinical framing.
You may use disclaimers explaining you are not a therapist and refer clients elsewhere when concerns arise.
✔️ Why Utah chose this route: Instead of regulating coaching as a licensed profession, Utah chose to draw a legal fence around therapy to protect the public while preserving coaching freedom.
The move was partly prompted by cases such as Jodi Hildebrandt’s, a former licensed counselor turned coach who was involved in child abuse and marketed herself using coaching labels to evade oversight.
As of mid‑2025, no other U.S. state has enacted legislation identical to Utah’s SB 48. However, legislative interest is growing:
Utah legislators proposed SB 251, a bill that would register life coaches, but it has been delayed for refinement.
Many states are aware of coaching’s overlap with therapeutic language. Some are considering regulation, or have had stakeholder hearings, though no new laws have been enacted yet.
Nationally, the International Coaching Federation (ICF) advocates for robust self‑regulation, training standards, ethical codes, continuing education, to pre-empt state regulation and preserve coaching autonomy.
🔹 Rising concern over harm: Utah’s policy arose in part because of documented harm: a third of revoked therapists had continued practicing as coaches—some deep‑dived into client trauma without coping tools. Clients experienced emotional spirals and suicidal ideation after untrained life coach exposure.
🔹 A precedent‑setting model: By drawing the legal boundary around mental health treatment rather than coaching per se, Utah has created a legislative template that other states could replicate. A state could opt to:
• Prohibit non‑licensed actors from addressing trauma, anxiety, depression.
• Require coach registration or consumer warnings.
• Fund enforcement of scope‑of-practice limits.
🔹 Legislative momentum exists: Stakeholder groups, including mental‑health advocates and legal professionals, have flagged coaching oversight as a safety concern.
Even without explicit bills elsewhere today, Utah’s law signals risk: coaches should assume temperate boundaries might shift from advisory to regulatory; especially in states facing high demand, therapist shortages, or widely publicized coaching abuse.
1. Clarify scope and messaging: Remove clinical terms such as anxiety, depression, trauma treatment from your marketing, intake forms, and coaching descriptions. Instead, frame your services around mindset, habits, performance, uncertainty, overwhelm, imposter syndrome (non‑diagnostic language).
2. Use transparent disclaimers: Clearly state on your website, contracts, and intake materials:
"I am not a licensed mental health professional. My services are coaching, not therapy. I refer clients to licensed providers for mental health conditions."
3. Create referral protocols: Have a vetted list of licensed counselors or therapists. If a client expresses suicidal ideation, describes trauma, or seeks diagnosis, respectfully pause coaching and refer.
4. Adopt or deepen ethical self‑regulation: Consider becoming ICF‑credentialed or adopting a similar professional standard. ICF’s advocacy toolkit encourages coaches to enforce ethics, education and credentialing to prevent state intervention.
5. Engage policy proactively: Monitor legislative trends in your state and others. If bills emerge like Utah’s SB 251, get involved:
📌 Submit public comment or testimony,
📌 Speak to legislators in coaching-friendly terms: improve consumer protection without over‑regulation,
📌 Highlight self‑regulated credentialing bodies’ standards and ethics.
6. Educate clients and the public:
Create content, blogs, social media posts, reports, explaining the difference between coaching and therapy, and how your branding avoids clinical claims. Transparency builds trust and makes coaching less likely to attract legislative scrutiny.
Utah’s SB 48 is a watershed moment. It does not license life coaches; but it raises the stakes dramatically for the profession. Coaches working with clients in or from Utah must stay rigorously within coaching boundaries and avoid therapeutic language. The new law introduces consequences for those who drift into mental‑health treatment territory.
While no other jurisdiction has yet matched Utah, the policy logic is clear: if life coaching leads to harm, states may move to regulate or restrict it. Self‑regulation, clear advertising, referral practices, and proactive advocacy are now essential strategies to preserve coaching’s independence and reputation.
👉 Would you like assistance drafting compliant messaging, disclaimers, or a referral policy for your coaching practice? Contact Stephen B. Henry, the Coach's Coach.
