State of California v. Anna Runkle ("Crappy Childhood Fairy") – Thoughts?

[Etherial Cat]

I've been following the dispute involving Anna Runkle (Crappy Childhood Fairy) and California regulators, and I'm curious what people here think.

For anyone unfamiliar, Anna runs a large YouTube channel focused on trauma recovery, CPTSD, emotional healing, and related topics. She openly states that she is not a licensed therapist, psychologist, physician, or other mental health professional, and includes disclaimers to that effect. At the same time, she operates a business offering courses, coaching, groups, and paid programs related to healing and recovery.

According to her account, California regulators have challenged aspects of her activities on the grounds that they may constitute the unlicensed practice of psychology on pretty general claims. She has responded by filing a federal lawsuit alleging violations of her constitutional rights, particularly free speech protections.

Literally, where does the practice of psychology starts?  

[Lila9]

I follow her on YouTube. I can understand the need for regulation. However, psychology is a pseudoscience in and of itself. There are many people online offering all sorts of unsolicited psychological advice and courses, so unless she has done something really terrible and unethical, I don't understand the chase. She is also transparent about her background.

[Ulax]

Seems pretty ridiculous to me to go after a CPTSD person when the psychology profession only just recognised CPTSD as a mental health diagnosis.