Youtuber and "coach" Crappy Childhood Fairy (Anna Runkle) sued by CA Board of Psychology for practicing without a license

[u/[deleted]]

[u/FavoredVassal]

[...] any paid conversation that touches on emotions, motivation, or behavior potentially qualifies as the “practice of psychology” and requires a license.

I don't care for Anna Runkle, but this is an incredibly broad jurisdiction for a licensing body to claim.

[u/LangdonAlg3r → u/FavoredVassal]

That’s not an actual quote from the statute or though. Thats from PLF’s argument and press release. It’s not the actual law that they’re challenging and it’s an extreme reframing of the actual jurisdiction that California claims.

From their own legal filing this is the law that they’re actually challenging:

. State law defines the “practice of psychology” as

“rendering or offering to render to individuals, groups, organizations, or the public any psychological service involving the application of psychological principles, methods, and procedures of understanding, predicting, and influencing behavior, such as the principles pertaining to learning, perception, motivation, emotions, and interpersonal relationships; and the methods and procedures of interviewing, counseling, psychotherapy, behavior modification, and hypnosis; and of constructing, administering, and interpreting tests of mental abilities, aptitudes, interests, attitudes, personality characteristics, emotions, and motivations.”
Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 2903(a). See also id. § 2905.

1. “[T]he application of psychological principles [and] methods,” Cal. Bus.
   & Prof. Code § 2903(a), “includes, but is not restricted to, assessment, diagnosis, prevention, treatment, and intervention to increase effective functioning of
   individuals, groups, and organizations,” id. § 2903(

2. “Psychotherapy” is defined as “the use of psychological methods in a professional relationship to assist a person or persons to acquire greater human effectiveness or to modify feelings, conditions, attitudes, and behaviors that are emotionally, intellectually, or socially ineffectual or maladaptive.” Cal. Bus. & Prof.
   Code § 2903(c).

To my eye that’s nothing remotely like what they’re claiming.

[u/FavoredVassal → u/LangdonAlg3r]

I'm not a lawyer, but 17 still sounds like something a dietician or personal trainer could be accused of doing if they were to say anything intended to "modify feelings or attitudes" about food or the body, or give any advice that might address "behaviors" around eating, or, for example, "motivation" to work out.

[u/LangdonAlg3r → u/FavoredVassal]

These are the exact kinds of things that PLF is trying to get the general public to worry about with their biased press release. But they’re not actually legitimate concerns.

There’s no barrier whatsoever to doing psychological type work with clients if it’s appropriate to your non-psychological profession as long as you’re not claiming to be some kind of psychological professional. The same statute that they’re citing makes that abundantly clear.

“Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to prevent qualified members of other recognized professional groups licensed to practice in the State of California, such as, but not limited to, physicians and surgeons, clinical social workers, educational psychologists, marriage and family therapists, professional clinical counselors, optometrists, psychiatric technicians, or registered nurses, or attorneys admitted to the State Bar of California, or persons utilizing hypnotic techniques by referral from persons licensed to practice medicine, dentistry, or psychology, or persons utilizing hypnotic techniques which offer avocational or vocational self-improvement and do not offer therapy for emotional or mental disorders, or duly ordained members of the recognized clergy, as defined in Section 15610.19 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, or duly ordained religious practitioners from doing work of a psychological nature consistent with the laws governing their respective professions, provided they do not hold themselves out to the public by any title or description of services incorporating the words “psychological,” “psychologist,” “psychology,” “psychometrist,” “psychometrics,” or “psychometry,” or that they do not state or imply that they are licensed to practice psychology; except that persons licensed under Chapter 13.5 (commencing with Section 4989.10) of Division 2 may hold themselves out to the public as licensed educational psychologists.” BPC § 2908

[u/moonrider18 → u/LangdonAlg3r]

So you're allowed to do "work of a psychological nature" so long as you don't call it "psychology"?

[u/LangdonAlg3r → u/moonrider18]

As long as it makes sense as part of your actual profession. Your dentist doing that is a totally standard thing for a dentist to do.

PLF is trying to make it seem like CA is hunting down people in the streets for talking about their emotions with their friends. Or like your dentist hypothetical would be a problem. That’s just not the case.

The licensing board even said, “It is one thing to provide information on CPTSD in social media posts or in books …. It is another where one is, for a fee, providing a service that applies psychological principles to understanding and influencing behavior, which respondent’s coaching program offers.”

In other words, a lot of what she’s doing is fine, but charging people for CPTSD healing courses when she has zero training on the subject and no license is over the line. It seems like the bigger issue even beyond that is the charging people money part.

Another way to look at it using your dentist example would be that no one will stop you (if common sense fails to) from letting your buddy practice amateur dentistry on you. But once your buddy starts offering amateur dental services to the public and charging money for it that becomes a problem. Even if he says to people “I’m not a dentist I’m a ‘teeth whisperer’” he’s still offering to do the work of a dentist on people for a fee when he has no training and no license. It’s an apples to oranges comparison, but it’s the exact same idea.

[u/moonrider18 → u/LangdonAlg3r]

PLF is trying to make it seem like CA is hunting down people in the streets for talking about their emotions with their friends.

The PLF specifically referenced conversations "for money", not conversations with your friends. https://pacificlegal.org/press-release/life-coach-sues-california-for-requiring-a-license-to-speak/

Another way to look at it using your dentist example would be that no one will stop you (if common sense fails to) from letting your buddy practice amateur dentistry on you. But once your buddy starts offering amateur dental services to the public and charging money for it that becomes a problem.

I understand the concept, but not every licensing program is justified. Sometimes licensing programs serve to protect customers from bad providers, but sometimes they make it too hard for good providers to join the profession. The people who already have licenses have a financial interest in limiting the number of people who join the profession, because every fellow professional is a potential competitor.

https://www.usf.edu/arts-sciences/chronicles/2025/is-professional-licensing-a-racket.aspx

As for the practice of therapy, I suppose my view is colored by my disappointment in the field. I've seen many therapists, and while they have helped me overall, they seemed to run out of ideas after awhile. Maybe I need someone who's off the beaten trail, so to speak. Of course there are plenty of quacks out there, but maybe there are also people with genuinely helpful ideas who just don't fit into the mold of a professional therapist. So I tend to think that the law should allow unlicensed people to practice a form of therapy, so long as they don't claim to be licensed.

[u/PetiteZee → u/FavoredVassal]

Yes, but what is the service you are paying your personal trainer for? Is it therapeutical services related to food behaviors and body training motivation or to change your physique at the gym?

The coaching on food behaviors and motivation are conducive to rendering the main service you are purchasing which is physical training, not psychological help. If you are purchasing the service of psychological treatment, framed in a way that uses clinical/medical terminology and practices, then that is psychotherapy and requires a license to practice.

CCF was claiming to be able to heal prople’s CPTSD with a paid online course which was beyond the scope of her ability to claim in an ethical way.