Life Coach Sues California Over Right to Speak With Clients

A California life coach filed a federal lawsuit Wednesday challenging the State’s attempts to prosecute her for talking about mental health without a psychology license. Anna Runkle argues that California is violating the First Amendment by requiring her to have a license to speak with paying clients.

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution, as applied to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, prohibits government officials from enforcing statutes that restrict more speech than necessary when the limitation on speech is otherwise permissible, the lawsuit filed by Pacific Legal Foundation says.

Through her business, “Crappy Childhood Fairy,” Ms. Runkle now has over one million YouTube subscribers, has published two books, and offers videos and coaching sessions to teach others how to heal and empower themselves after experiencing similar childhood traumas. She even has licensed psychologists as clients, who use her techniques for clients and themselves.

Runkle has turned her own experience overcoming childhood trauma into a mission to help others heal and move forward. Through her company she offers courses, webinars, books, and retreats that share the techniques that changed her life. She works with willing clients seeking alternatives or additions to traditional talk therapy.

Despite this, the State of California has used a vague and overbroad definition of psychology to punish Runkle for speaking with those willing clients. California defines the practice of psychology to include any service involving the application of “psychological principles” to understanding or influencing behavior — without defining what those principles are or where they end.

“Under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, the government cannot prohibit Ms. Runkle from sharing her advice and experience with others. The Board’s order turns entirely on what Ms. Runkle says to willing listeners. Likewise, applying the psychology license law to self-help advice is substantially overbroad in violation of the First Amendment. And because the statute vaguely defines the ‘practice of psychology’ by sweeping in a countless amount of protected speech, the statute is void for vagueness under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution,” the lawsuit says.

“California’s psychology licensing law is so broad and so vague that regulators can use it to prosecute virtually anyone who talks with people for money,” said Caleb Trotter, a senior attorney with Pacific Legal Foundation. “The First Amendment protects the right to have conversations and give advice without government permission.”

There is no clear line in California’s definition of psychology between a life coach, a friend, a pastor, and a licensed psychologist. “The board believes it gets to decide whose conversations are legal,” Runkle says.

A ruling in her favor would affirm that the government cannot use an undefined licensing statute to silence speakers it has not authorized — and that the First Amendment protects conversations and advice as much as any other form of speech.

You can read the PLF lawsuit case page here.

Below is Anna Runkle explaining what she does, and the lawsuit filed against her by the State of California.