ACCC findings on fake reviews and influencer disclosure

The ACCC found 37% of businesses reviewed had concerning review conduct and 81% of influencers had problem posts. Here is what it means for practices.

7 December 202310 min read

On 7 December 2023 the ACCC released two short reports from its internet sweeps of online reviews and social media influencers. It found that 37% of the 137 businesses it reviewed had engaged in concerning review conduct, and that 81% of the 118 influencers it reviewed had made posts raising concerns under the Australian Consumer Law (ACL).

This was not a new law, but it is a clear statement of how the ACCC reads the existing law on reviews and influencer marketing. For practices that rely on Google reviews, review-collection software or social media partnerships, it sets out what the regulator is looking for. And for registered health practitioners, it sits on top of Ahpra’s separate ban on testimonials in advertising.

Since then: in March 2026 the ACCC said it would “soon release specific guidelines for influencers“. We could not confirm whether those guidelines have been published at the time of writing, so check the ACCC website for the latest. ACL maximum penalties have also increased since 2023, to a fixed $100 million for companies for conduct from 28 March 2026.

What changed

The background is two sweeps. On 4 October 2022 the ACCC launched an internet sweep targeting fake or misleading online reviews and testimonials, aimed at reviews posted on business websites, Facebook pages and third-party review platforms. It said misleading advertising by influencers would be covered in a second sweep. The ACCC later described its first social media sweep targeting influencers as taking place in January 2023.

The ACCC published the findings of both sweeps on 7 December 2023. The key findings were:

Online reviews

37% of the 137 businesses reviewed had engaged in concerning conduct.
The sectors with the highest proportions of potentially fake or misleading reviews were household appliances and electronics, beauty products, and home improvement and household products and services. Health products, and food and restaurants, had the lowest proportions.
Many businesses used third-party professional reviewers and review removalists. The ACCC reviewed 24 businesses that offer services to create fake reviews, remove negative reviews, or prevent or edit negative reviews.
Some third-party review management services enabled manipulation by encouraging businesses to choose which reviews to display publicly, including directing customers with positive experiences to post a public review while referring those with negative experiences directly to the business.
Most businesses and review platforms did not disclose whether reviews were incentivised, and did not require reviewers to disclose any benefit received.
Many businesses appeared to have fake positive reviews on their website or on third-party platforms.

Influencers

81% of the 118 influencers reviewed made posts that raised concerns for potentially misleading advertising.
The sweep covered Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat, YouTube, Facebook and Twitch, across seven sectors.
The most common issue was not disclosing brand relationships.
Another common issue was vague or confusing disclosure language, such as “sp” and “spon” instead of “sponsored“, and formatting that hid the disclosure or made it hard to notice.

Who it applies to

The ACL applies to any business acting in trade or commerce. The ACCC was explicit that its expectations apply to influencers engaging in trade or commerce, and to “brands and marketers using influencers“. For health, that includes:

practices that collect, display or respond to online reviews;
practices using review-request software, review widgets or reputation management services;
cosmetic clinics, dental practices and others that work with influencers, ambassadors or content creators, whether paid in money or in free treatments; and
agencies managing reviews or influencer campaigns on a practice’s behalf.

What the rules require

The ACCC’s statements in December 2023 give a practical reading of the ACL. Here is what it said, and what it means.

No fake reviews, and no editing or removing genuine negative reviews

The ACCC said businesses that create fake reviews, or edit or remove genuine negative reviews, to inflate their own ratings, lower competitors’ ratings or hide genuine negative reviews, are in breach of the ACL. Reputation management is legitimate, but it must not mislead consumers.

No review-gating

The sweep specifically flagged services that direct happy customers to public review sites and unhappy customers to the business. The effect is a public rating that does not reflect the full range of experiences.

Disclose incentivised reviews

The ACCC said businesses that do not disclose incentivised reviews “are likely to mislead consumers“, because incentivised reviews are then presented as impartial when they are not.

Influencers must disclose clearly and must not misrepresent

The ACCC reminded influencers to:

clearly disclose promotional posts in a way that is immediately obvious, including where they received free products, tickets or other gifts or incentives;
never make misleading claims or misrepresent their experience with a product; and
not use manipulative or deceptive advertising practices.

Businesses are responsible for how influencers promote them

The ACCC said businesses should make sure influencers know their ACL obligations, and should be careful with scripts: scripts should never require influencers to misrepresent their experience or views. It also said influencers and brands may break the law if they do not take reasonable steps to ensure consumers are not misled into believing sponsored posts are genuine.

The follow-up: infringement notices in 2026

On 24 March 2026 the ACCC announced that online photobook business PhotobookShop had paid $39,600 under two infringement notices. According to the ACCC, between August 2024 and September 2025 the business on 107 occasions instructed influencers not to disclose that they had been given free products for their reviews. One notice related to posting an undisclosed gifted review; the other related to editing an influencer’s video to remove negative comments without disclosing the edit, which the ACCC alleged changed the overall impression. The ACCC noted that paying an infringement notice is not an admission of a contravention. The business is not in health, but the conduct maps closely onto how gifted treatments and edited content can be used in clinic marketing.

What it means for your marketing

Google Business Profile and reviews

Ask all patients for feedback the same way. Do not filter who receives the public review link based on a satisfaction score.
Do not buy reviews, post reviews from staff or friends as if they were patients, or use services that “remove” genuine negative reviews.
Do not offer discounts, gifts or prize draws in exchange for reviews unless the incentive is clearly disclosed. The ACCC found most businesses were not disclosing incentivised reviews, and said that is likely to mislead. In practice, the simplest approach is not to incentivise reviews at all.
Respond to negative reviews professionally and without disclosing patient information. Ahpra also cautions registered practitioners to take care engaging with reviews on third-party sites, because this may be treated as using a testimonial to advertise.

Website

If you display reviews, they must not be fake, edited to change their meaning, or selectively presented as representative. For registered practitioners, the National Law prohibits testimonials in advertising a regulated health service. Ahpra’s guidance explains that comments only about customer service are not testimonials, and that the party in control of content is responsible for testimonials in it. Many practices choose not to display clinical reviews on their own site at all.

Social media and influencers

This is where the December 2023 findings bite hardest for cosmetic, dental and wellness practices.

Any gifted or discounted treatment in exchange for content is an incentive and must be clearly disclosed in the post itself, in plain words.
Labels like “sp“, “spon” or a tag hidden among dozens of hashtags were specifically criticised by the ACCC.
Do not script an influencer’s experience, results or feelings. If you give a brief, keep it to factual information about the service and compliance requirements.
Do not edit creator content to remove critical comments. The PhotobookShop notices show the ACCC treats that as potentially misleading.
For health services, an influencer’s positive statements about clinical aspects of treatment, reposted or promoted by the practice, are likely to be testimonials under the National Law, regardless of disclosure.

Paid ads

Ads that quote star ratings or review counts must reflect genuine, unmanipulated reviews. If your rating has been boosted by gating or incentives, quoting it in an ad repeats the problem.

Email and SMS

Post-appointment review requests should go to all patients on the same terms. Do not send a “how did we do?” survey first and then follow up only with those who scored highly.

Common mistakes we see

Review software with a built-in filter. Many tools default to sending only high scorers to Google. That is exactly the pattern the ACCC described.
“Free treatment for a post” without disclosure. Treated as a casual arrangement, but it is an incentive.
Vague disclosure. “Thanks to the team at…” does not tell followers the content was paid for.
Staff reviews. Team members or family leaving five-star reviews that look like patient reviews.
Reposting influencer content about results. Even when disclosed, this can be a testimonial for a registered practitioner.
Delegating to an agency without asking how. Not knowing how your reviews are collected or how creators are briefed.

A practical checklist

Check the settings of any review-request tool. Turn off any filtering or “pre-screening” that routes only satisfied patients to public sites.
Stop any practice of offering incentives for reviews.
Make sure no staff, family or contractors post reviews as if they were patients.
Do not use services that promise to remove or suppress genuine negative reviews.
List every influencer, ambassador or creator relationship, including free or discounted treatments.
Put disclosure requirements in writing: clear words such as “Advertisement” or “Paid partnership“, visible without clicking “more“.
Remove any instruction not to disclose, and any script that tells creators what to say about their experience or results.
Do not edit creator content in a way that changes its overall impression.
For registered practitioners, check reviews and creator content against Ahpra’s testimonial guidance before reposting or promoting it.
Ask your agency to confirm in writing how it collects reviews and briefs creators.

How this fits with other rules

Australian Consumer Law. The sweep findings are about the ACL’s prohibition on misleading conduct. They apply to every business. Since 2023, maximum ACL penalties have increased to a fixed $100 million for companies for conduct from 28 March 2026, with alternative benefit and turnover limbs.

National Law (Ahpra). For registered practitioners, testimonials and purported testimonials are prohibited in advertising regulated health services. That ban applies whether or not a review is genuine or disclosed. The ACL rules on genuineness and disclosure sit alongside it.

TGA. The TGA regulates advertising of therapeutic goods, including on social media. Influencer content that mentions a medicine or device can raise TGA issues as well. The ACCC noted that ASIC, the TGA and Ahpra also regulate influencer conduct in their areas, and that it works with them to decide who is best placed to act.

Industry codes. The ACCC also pointed to industry codes, including the Australian Association of National Advertisers’ Code of Ethics, which requires advertising to be clearly distinguishable as such, and the Australian Influencer Marketing Council’s Code of Practice.

Frequently asked questions

Can we still ask patients for Google reviews?

Asking patients for feedback is not prohibited by the ACL. The concern is manipulation: asking only happy patients, offering undisclosed incentives, or removing or editing genuine negative reviews. Registered practitioners should also read Ahpra’s guidance, because the way reviews are used in advertising matters.

Is a free treatment for an influencer an incentive?

Yes. The ACCC said influencers should clearly disclose posts where they have received free products or other gifts or incentives, and the PhotobookShop notices involved gifted products, not cash.

Is “#sp” or “#spon” enough?

The ACCC specifically identified “sp” and “spon” as vague or confusing disclosure language. Use clear words that are immediately obvious to viewers.

If an influencer discloses properly, can we repost their content?

Disclosure addresses the ACL concern about hidden advertising. It does not resolve the National Law testimonial ban. If the content contains positive statements about clinical aspects of a regulated health service, reposting it in your advertising can be a problem.

Has the ACCC published influencer guidelines?

In December 2023 the ACCC said it would release guidance in early 2024, and in March 2026 it said it would soon release specific influencer guidelines. We could not confirm publication at the time of writing. Check the ACCC website.

Need a hand?

If you are unsure how your review requests are set up, or how your creator partnerships are disclosed, our AHPRA compliance audit checks reviews, testimonials and influencer content together. If you want ongoing help, our social media for clinics service builds disclosure and testimonial checks into every post. Cosmetic practices may also find our cosmetic clinics page useful.

This article is general guidance based on the published rules, not legal advice. Final responsibility for advertising sits with your practice and, for health advertising, the registered practitioner, and complex situations may need independent legal advice.