Tanning beds remain legal in the United States because they are regulated as consumer products rather than banned outright, and a combination of industry lobbying, personal liberty arguments, and a patchwork of state-level laws has kept federal regulators from imposing stricter controls. This is true despite the fact that the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer classifies UV-emitting tanning devices as Group 1 carcinogens, the same category as tobacco and asbestos.
How Tanning Beds Are Regulated at the Federal Level
The FDA treats tanning beds as radiation-emitting electronic products, not as inherently illegal devices. All tanning equipment must carry a warning label, include an accurate timer, have an emergency stop control, and come with protective goggles and an exposure schedule. The FDA has proposed requiring operators to ban minors under 18 and to collect a signed risk acknowledgment from adult users before each session, but these proposals have lingered without becoming final rules for years. The agency’s own tanning-products page still describes these measures as “proposed” with content last updated in 2019.
This regulatory approach mirrors how the U.S. handles other known-harmful consumer products like alcohol and cigarettes: restrict access, require warnings, but ultimately allow adults to make their own choices. The government can regulate a product heavily without banning it, and that middle ground is exactly where tanning beds sit.
The Personal Liberty Argument
Whenever cities or states have tried to restrict tanning operations, the industry has pushed back with legal challenges rooted in personal freedom and economic rights. In one notable case, Golden Glow Tanning Salon v. City of Columbus, Mississippi, a salon argued that a local tanning ordinance violated a fundamental right to work. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected that claim, noting that the Supreme Court does not recognize a fundamental right to work that would override reasonable government regulation. Courts have consistently applied a lenient legal standard to tanning restrictions, meaning governments can regulate the industry as long as they have a rational reason to do so.
Still, the personal liberty framing is powerful in public debate even when it fails in court. The idea that adults should be free to assume known risks, much like they can smoke or drink, makes an outright ban politically difficult to pass through Congress or state legislatures.
Industry Lobbying and Economic Pressure
Indoor tanning is a $5 billion-a-year industry in the United States, and its trade groups have invested heavily in blocking restrictive legislation. The American Suntanning Association, the industry’s primary lobbying arm, has promoted claims that tanning provides health benefits like vitamin D production and can serve as an affordable alternative to medical phototherapy for skin conditions. A 2014 analysis in JAMA Dermatology found that the ASA calls itself a “science-first organization” while openly stating its goal is to recruit scientists who will counter “anti-tanning research” and “defend and promote the indoor tanning market.”
The industry also emphasizes that most tanning salons are small businesses, framing regulation as a threat to local entrepreneurs and their employees. This argument resonates with state legislators, particularly in regions where tanning salons are common and where skepticism of government overreach runs deep.
What the Science Actually Shows
The health evidence against tanning beds is not ambiguous. The IARC classified UV-emitting tanning devices as carcinogenic to humans in 2009, based on both human epidemiological data and animal studies confirming that UVA, UVB, and UVC radiation all cause cancer. People who start tanning before age 35 increase their melanoma risk by 59 percent, and the risk goes up with each additional session. Tanning beds emit UVA radiation at levels significantly stronger than natural sunlight, which is part of why even short sessions cause measurable DNA damage to skin cells.
A Patchwork of State Laws
Without a federal ban, regulation has fallen to individual states, creating an uneven landscape. As of 2023, 22 states and Washington, D.C. have passed laws prohibiting all minors under 18 from using indoor tanning facilities. Of those, 20 have no exceptions at all, while Oregon and Washington allow minors to tan only with a medical exemption. California was the first state to enact an under-18 ban in 2012, and Vermont followed shortly after.
Geographic patterns are striking. Two-thirds of Northeastern states have passed under-18 bans, compared with just 25 percent of Midwestern states. The remaining 28 states either have no age restrictions, require only parental consent for minors, or set a lower minimum age like 14 or 16. Bills attempting to ban minors from tanning failed in 16 states between 2009 and 2011 alone, illustrating how much legislative resistance exists even for protecting children.
Other Countries Have Gone Further
The U.S. approach looks permissive compared to other nations. Brazil became the first country in the world to ban commercial tanning beds entirely in 2009. Australia followed with a total ban across all states and territories. New Zealand prohibits tanning bed use for minors but allows adult access. Several European countries have also imposed strict bans or near-bans for minors, creating a global trend toward tighter controls that the U.S. has largely not followed.
The contrast highlights a recurring pattern in American regulatory culture: the U.S. tends to favor disclosure and consumer choice over outright prohibition, even when the scientific consensus is clear. Tanning beds are legal for the same structural reasons that many other harmful-but-popular products remain legal. The science would support a ban, but the political, economic, and cultural forces pulling in the other direction have so far been stronger.