For entertainment purposes only: the law, the disclaimer, and the tarot shop that fought back

In several US states, a tarot reader who charges money can be breaking an old fortune-telling law unless they post a disclaimer that their readings are for entertainment purposes only. One Pennsylvania shop owner decided that law itself was the problem, and their fight with it is now moving toward a federal trial.

What is this law, and why does it ask for a disclaimer?

Why do fortune-telling disclaimers exist?

State and city laws that regulate paid fortune-telling are aimed at fraud, at con artists who extract money through promises of curse removal or guaranteed outcomes. The disclaimer language, "for entertainment purposes only," is how some of those statutes separate a protected, honestly framed service from a claim of real predictive power. In a few places the disclaimer is not just good practice, it is written into the law as the line between legal and illegal.

Which states require it?

There is no federal law governing tarot or astrology readings. What exists is a patchwork. Some states, including Oklahoma, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and North Carolina, ban paid fortune-telling outright on paper, though enforcement tends to focus on fraud cases. Texas is the poster child for the written-disclosure requirement: psychics and fortune-tellers there must give a written statement that the service is for entertainment purposes only, that results are not guaranteed, and that it is no substitute for professional advice, with a fine for skipping it. New York's statute has an exemption for entertainment and amusement, which is why the disclaimer carries legal weight there. Pennsylvania's version, Title 18, Section 7104, is a flat ban on paid fortune-telling with no disclaimer escape hatch, which is what set the story below in motion.

The Pennsylvania case: what happened and when

Here is the story, in plain order.

In October 2023, The Serpent's Key Shoppe and Sanctuary, a witchcraft-themed shop in Hanover, Pennsylvania, was profiled in a local newsletter. Its owner, Beck Lawrence (who uses they/them pronouns and runs the shop under the name Beck Ravenswood), offers tarot readings there. Days after the profile, Hanover's police chief, Chad Martin, visited the shop on October 5, 2023, to inform Lawrence that charging for tarot readings fell under Pennsylvania's fortune-telling statute, a law from 1861. Lawrence has said they were told that future complaints could lead to arrest, up to a year in jail or a $2,500 fine per offense.

Lawrence was not arrested, and the department took no enforcement action. But the borough would not agree to promise it never would. After a social media outcry, Chief Martin issued a statement saying the visit was meant to educate, not to threaten, and pointed anyone unhappy with the statute to their legislators.

So Lawrence sued. On August 19, 2024, they filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against the borough and the police chief in the Middle District of Pennsylvania, arguing that the threat of future enforcement under the 1861 statute violates their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Lawrence reads under a temporary injunction while the case proceeds. A judge declined to throw the case out, and deadlines now run into 2027: expert discovery closes in March 2027, with a trial possible in June 2027.

Why does the disclaimer make this case harder?

This is the part practitioners should sit with. Lawrence's shop did post an entertainment-purposes disclaimer, and commentators have noted the legal effect of that: a disclaimer can undercut a religious-liberty argument, because you are on record saying your readings are entertainment rather than sincere spiritual work. That is why the lawsuit rests on free speech rather than free exercise. Whether a reader posts the disclaimer is not a small clerical choice. It changes what the law can say about you.

How do readers handle the disclaimer in practice?

Most working readers treat the disclaimer as honest framing rather than surrender. The standard professional language, in line with the American Tarot Association's code of ethics, says the reading is for entertainment purposes only, is not a substitute for medical, legal, financial, or psychological advice, and is no guarantee of outcomes. Readers put it on their websites, their booking pages, and their receipts, and say it at the start of a session. Framed that way, the disclaimer manages expectations and keeps fraud claims away from an honest practice. It only becomes a problem when the reader's own faith in the work is the thing being disclaimed.

What this fight is really about

Strip away the legalese and the Serpent's Key case is about a simple thing: whether a person can make their living with cards in their hands without the threat of an 1861 law being held over them. Fraud is fraud and should be prosecuted. But a law that makes paid readings a misdemeanor on its face is not doing fraud work. It is sitting in the statute books, mostly dormant, ready to make someone's ordinary practice suddenly look criminal, and as Lawrence's story shows, all it takes is a newsletter profile and a police chief with an opinion.

Lawrence has said the goal is to get the law struck so it cannot be used on anyone else, and that they will settle for either the lawsuit winning or legislators repealing it. A bill to strike the statute has been floated. Either road is fine by them.

Wherever the courts land, the takeaway for readers and practitioners is the same. Know your state and city's rules before you charge. Write your disclaimer in language you believe. And keep an eye on Hanover, Pennsylvania, because a win there would matter in every state with one of these old laws still on the shelf.