A licence is not a certificate of skill. It is a geographic permission: a named authority in a named place agrees to hold a named person to a standard, and to take that permission away. The physicians of this house hold Chinese licences in Chinese medicine, issued by the provincial health authority, renewed on a schedule, and carrying a number that is printed on every report we send. Those licences mean a great deal in Hangzhou. They mean nothing at all in Ohio, and we will not pretend otherwise.
What most jurisdictions in the United States regulate is a short list of acts, not a body of knowledge. Acupuncture licensing turns on piercing the skin with a needle. The unlicensed practice of medicine turns on naming an illness in a particular person, and on directing what they should take for it. Notice that all three of those are things we have already declined to do, and that we declined them by designing the product that way rather than by adding a paragraph at the bottom.
Several states have written down, in statute, where the line sits for people who work outside a licence. California added Health and Safety Code section 2053.5 in 2002, requiring unlicensed practitioners to hand over a plain written disclosure of their training and the nature of their services, and forbidding them from naming an illness or telling anyone to stop what a licensed clinician has told them to do. Minnesota did something similar in chapter 146A, and Rhode Island followed with its own version. We are not in any of those states, and we hold ourselves to their standard anyway, because it is a good standard and because it is written in plain language rather than in the language of marketing.
Our own disclosure is on the disclosure page, in full, in one screen, with a version number and a date. It says the same things this page says. If the two ever disagree, the disclosure is the one that governs.