Publication Date

2026

Document Type

Article

Abstract

Many Americans consult unlicensed wellness coaches for scientifically-valid advice on diet, exercise, and lifestyle interventions. Yet state medical practice acts and ambiguous government line drawing between wellness and medical care chill the speech of these coaches as it relates to disease prevention, even though conventional medicine systematically fails to deliver the speech-heavy preventive care consumers need and want. This Article argues that medical practice acts, particularly the sixteen state statutes that include "prevention" in their definition of medical practice, are constitutionally overbroad restrictions on protected speech. Despite judicial and scholarly assumptions to the contrary, not all those working in wellness are grifters but believe in evidence-based disease prevention. Yet, a large contingent of wellness coaches fear mentioning diseases by name, resorting to linguistic gymnastics like substituting "improve gut health" for "prevent diabetes." Legal advisors counsel these coaches to avoid "trigger words" that might provoke government action. This chilling effect stifles the marketplace of ideas precisely when consumers seek needed disease prevention information and guidance. Most courts and government actors have not fully considered the impact of broadly-defined medical practice laws on unregulated wellness speech. The growth in wellness coaching as well as recent court decisions eliminating the professional speech category create favorable conditions for another overbreadth challenge. This Article demonstrates that medical practice laws suffer from substantial overbreadth by sweeping in speech-heavy disease prevention activities that pose no realistic danger to public health, while physicians themselves lack training, time, and financial incentives to deliver preventive services. The Article proposes three paths forward: litigation strategies including overbreadth challenges by disciplined coaches and anticipatory challenges by consumer advocacy groups invoking "listener's rights"; legislative advocacy for stronger Safe Harbor laws; and consumer protection mechanisms including voluntary registration systems, national wellness practitioner standards, and contractual protections. The marketplace of ideas, not medical board censorship, should govern disease prevention speech.

Download

Share

COinS