Ahpra’s revised advertising guidelines from 14 December 2020

The December 2020 advertising guidelines added rules on acceptable evidence, testimonials and titles, with an updated enforcement strategy.

14 December 202013 min read

On Monday 14 December 2020, revised Guidelines for advertising a regulated health service took effect across every registered health profession in Australia. Ahpra and the National Boards released them in advance on 17 November 2020, together with an updated Advertising compliance and enforcement strategy that took effect on the same day.

These two documents still set the ground rules for how most practices advertise. If you run a website, a Google Business Profile, a social media account or a paid campaign for a regulated health service, the 2020 guidelines describe what Ahpra expects, and the strategy describes what happens when it finds something wrong.

Status as at October 2026: the 2020 guidelines remain the current general advertising guidelines. They have not been replaced, but parts of the text are now out of date. In 2022 the National Law was amended to increase the maximum advertising penalty, and in 2023 the title “surgeon” became protected for medical practitioners. Ahpra says the guidelines will be updated to include both changes when they are next reviewed. Cosmetic practices also have extra, profession-specific rules: the Medical Board’s guidelines for advertising cosmetic surgery (from 1 July 2023) and the guidelines for advertising higher risk non-surgical cosmetic procedures (from 2 September 2025). We cover those in separate articles, along with our article on the higher penalties for advertising offences.

What changed

The guidelines are made jointly by the National Boards under section 39 of the National Law. Ahpra says the National Boards completed a review in 2020, following public consultation, and the revised version took effect on 14 December 2020.

The Dental Board of Australia’s announcement of 17 November 2020 lists the main changes:

more content about testimonials, protected titles, and claims about registration, competence and qualifications
new content about the evidence required for claims about the effectiveness of a regulated health service, and what counts as acceptable evidence
restructured content so information is easier to find
new flowcharts to help decide when advertising needs to be supported by acceptable evidence, and whether a review is a testimonial.

At the same time, Ahpra and the National Boards updated the Advertising compliance and enforcement strategy for the National Scheme. The strategy was first published in 2017. Ahpra says an evaluation of the strategy informed the update, and the revised strategy took effect on 14 December 2020.

Ahpra said releasing the guidelines early gave advertisers time to bring their advertising into line before they took effect.

Who it applies to

The guidelines apply to anyone who advertises a regulated health service, not just registered practitioners. A regulated health service is a service provided by, or usually provided by, a registered health practitioner. Advertisers can include:

registered health practitioners
individuals who are not registered health practitioners, such as non-clinical practice owners
businesses, partnerships and corporate entities.

Responsibility follows control. The guidelines say the person or entity who controls part or all of the advertising, meaning whoever authorises the content, is the advertiser. You have control if you publish or authorise content, or direct someone else to publish or draft it, including a staff member or a marketing agency. You also have control if there is a mechanism for you to modify or remove content published by someone else. The guidelines are plain that advertisers need to check content produced by others on their behalf.

The guidelines also explain what is not advertising. Information about treatment or costs given in a consultation, in person, by phone or by video, is not treated as advertising. Material given to patients during a consultation to explain their condition or procedures is excluded too, provided it does not promote the practitioner’s own services. Public health material, such as a government immunisation poster, is also outside the advertising rules.

What the rules require

The guidelines explain section 133 of the National Law. In summary, your advertising must not:

be false, misleading or deceptive, or likely to be misleading or deceptive
offer a gift, discount or other inducement unless the terms and conditions of the offer are also stated
use testimonials or purported testimonials about the service or business
create an unreasonable expectation of beneficial treatment
directly or indirectly encourage the indiscriminate or unnecessary use of regulated health services.

Acceptable evidence for effectiveness claims

This was one of the main additions in 2020. Advertisers must be able to substantiate claims made in advertising, which the guidelines call “acceptable evidence”. Acceptable evidence mostly means empirical data from formal research or systematic studies published in peer-reviewed literature. The guidelines say a well-conducted systematic review of relevant randomised controlled trials is the highest level of evidence, and that research should not be “cherry picked”.

The guidelines list types of studies that generally will not be acceptable for advertising claims, including studies with no human subjects, before and after studies with few or no controls, self-assessment studies, anecdotal observations from practice, and studies that do not apply to the target population.

The guidelines also draw a distinction you should keep in mind: the evidence needed for an advertising claim is different from the evidence used in clinical decisions. In a consultation, the patient can ask questions and give informed consent. An advertisement is generic, and nobody is there to explain whether the treatment suits the reader.

The new flowchart (Figure 1) works through three questions: is the claim about a regulated health service, is it used in advertising, and is it supported by acceptable evidence? If the answer to the last question is no, the claim is not permitted in advertising.

Misleading claims more broadly

The guidelines give a long list of ways advertising can mislead. These include listing conditions a treatment can “assist with” or “treat” without qualification, minimising or under-representing risk, comparing outcomes, professions, practitioners or prices without complete information, and claiming to provide a superior service.

Titles, specialist claims and qualifications

The 2020 guidelines expanded the guidance on titles. Only practitioners who hold specialist registration or an endorsement can use the related specialist title or endorsement title, including in a business name. Beyond the legal title protections, the Boards consider that words such as “specialist”, “specialises in”, “specialty” or “specialised” are likely to mislead when used by a practitioner without specialist registration. The guidelines suggest phrases such as “substantial experience in” or “working primarily in” are less likely to mislead.

Other points worth noting:

A specialist should not overstate their specialty. The example given is a specialist GP who should not describe themselves as a paediatric specialist.
A protected title combined with a descriptive term can be fine (the guidelines’ example is “Sports chiropractor”), but not if it implies a specialty the practitioner does not hold.
“Doctor” is not a protected title, but if a non-medical practitioner uses “Dr” in advertising, their profession should be made clear, for example “Dr Lee (Osteopath)”.
Qualifications and experience can be advertised accurately and factually. Post-nominals and memberships must not imply more qualifications, skill or experience than the practitioner has.

Offers and inducements

If you advertise a gift, discount or inducement, the terms and conditions must be stated in plain language and must be easy to find. Where space is limited, the ad can direct people to the terms, such as through a link. The guidelines warn that the public generally take “free” to mean absolutely free, so an offer is not free if the cost is recouped elsewhere, including through Medicare. Stating an instalment amount without the total cost is also listed as a potential breach.

Testimonials and reviews

Testimonials are recommendations or positive statements about the clinical aspects of a regulated health service used in advertising. A clinical aspect exists if the statement refers to a symptom or reason for seeking treatment, a diagnosis or treatment, or an outcome (including the practitioner’s skills or experience). Comments only about customer service or communication style are not testimonials.

The second flowchart (Figure 2) asks whether a review is about a regulated health service, whether it is used in advertising, and whether it refers to a clinical aspect. If all three answers are yes, it is not permitted in advertising.

The guidelines also set out who is responsible. You are responsible for reviews on your own website and your business social media. If a platform does not let you edit or remove reviews, the guidelines say compliance “may be achieved by disabling the reviews/testimonials functions”. Owners of booking sites or review platforms are responsible for reviews they control. You are not responsible for removing reviews on platforms you do not control, but you should take care when engaging with reviews on third-party sites, because that engagement may be treated as using a testimonial.

Ahpra’s separate testimonial guidance adds that selectively editing reviews can be misleading, for example editing a mixed review so only the positive parts remain.

Unreasonable expectations and images

Advertising must not overstate benefits, exaggerate outcomes or recovery times, or use words such as “safe”, “effective”, “risk-free” or “pain-free” without acknowledging possible adverse reactions or mixed evidence. Patient stories and the advertiser’s own anecdotes about personal benefit can also create unreasonable expectations.

Before and after images are less likely to mislead when they are as similar as possible in content, angle, background, framing, lighting, posture, clothing and make-up, when any alteration is explained, and when the treatment is the only visible change.

Urgency and unnecessary use

Phrases such as “don’t delay”, “don’t miss out” or “for a limited time only” may be unlawful when linked to unsubstantiated suggestions that a person’s health will suffer. Encouraging regular appointments without clinical indication, contracting for future services, and prizes that outweigh the cost and risk of treatment are also flagged.

How the enforcement strategy works

The updated strategy describes a risk-based approach:

Low risk, first complaint: Ahpra writes to the advertiser, provides resources and sets a timeframe to amend the advertising, with advice on whether compliance will be checked.
Medium risk or repeated non-compliance: compliance is checked by targeted audits. A practitioner who does not fix their advertising, or who has a history of breaches, can receive a show cause letter proposing conditions that restrict their advertising. If conditions are imposed, the practitioner must show they understand the requirements before the conditions are removed. Continued non-compliance may lead to a tribunal referral.
High risk: some matters can go to prosecution or disciplinary action from the outset.

The strategy names high-risk advertising as including advertising that raises concerns of actual harm, misleading claims about curing serious illnesses, targeting vulnerable groups, practices widespread in a profession with potential for significant adverse impact, and claims involving holding out as registered or unlawful use of a protected title.

For testimonials, the strategy says enforcement will focus on testimonials that also breach another part of section 133, such as being misleading or creating unreasonable expectations. The strategy also introduced a staged proactive approach: registered practitioners are asked to declare that their advertising meets the National Law requirements, and Ahpra audits those declarations.

What it means for your marketing

Website

Treatment pages are where most effectiveness claims live. Check every claim about what a treatment does against the acceptable evidence standard. Remove unqualified lists of conditions you “treat”. Check practitioner bios for “specialist” language and post-nominals, and make sure “Dr” is clarified for non-medical practitioners. If your site has a reviews page or an embedded review widget, apply the testimonial flowchart to each review shown.

Google Business Profile and reviews

Patients can leave reviews on platforms you do not control, and the guidelines do not require you to chase their removal. The risk is in using them: republishing, quoting or promoting clinical reviews in your advertising. Be careful with replies that engage with clinical details of a review, since engaging with reviews on third-party sites may be treated as using a testimonial.

Social media

Your business pages are advertising. If a platform offers a recommendations or reviews function that you cannot moderate, the guidelines point to disabling it. Posts with patient stories, “success stories” or before and after images need the same scrutiny as your website.

Paid ads

Short ad formats make it tempting to drop terms and conditions and context. Any offer needs its terms, or a clear link to them. Urgency wording needs care, and headline claims still need acceptable evidence.

Email and SMS

Recall notices are listed in the guidelines’ definition of advertising. Recall and promotional messages should not encourage appointments without clinical indication, and any offer needs its terms stated.

Printed and in-clinic material

Office signs, business cards, letterheads used to promote a provider, flyers and directory listings are all listed as advertising. Window signage and brochures should be checked like any other channel.

Common mistakes we see

Review carousels on the homepage that mix customer-service comments with clinical outcomes.
“Specialist” or “specialises in” used by practitioners without specialist registration.
Lists of conditions under “What we treat” with no qualification or evidence behind them.
“Free” consultations where the cost is recovered elsewhere, or offers with no terms at all.
Before and after photos with different lighting, angles or make-up.
“Safe” and “pain-free” used without mentioning risks.
Assuming the agency or the platform is responsible. The guidelines put responsibility on whoever controls the content.

A practical checklist

List every channel you control: website, social pages, Google Business Profile, directory listings, ads, email, SMS, signage and print.
For each effectiveness claim, record the evidence you rely on and check it meets the acceptable evidence standard.
Run every displayed review through the testimonial flowchart and remove any that refer to symptoms, treatment or outcomes.
Disable review functions you cannot moderate on business social media.
Do not edit reviews selectively.
Check titles, “specialist” wording, post-nominals and “Dr” usage for every practitioner.
Add plain-language terms and conditions to every offer, or a clear link to them.
Remove urgency wording linked to health consequences.
Check before and after images against the consistency criteria.
Keep a record of what you changed and when, in case you are asked to declare compliance.

How this fits with other rules

The guidelines cover the National Law only. Ahpra and the National Boards say they cannot approve advertising or give legal advice, and recommend independent advice from a lawyer or indemnity insurer. Advertising a health service often also involves the therapeutic goods advertising rules, administered by the TGA, and the Australian Consumer Law, administered by the ACCC. The guidelines note Ahpra may refer a complaint to those regulators. Registered practitioners must also meet their Board’s code of conduct, and the guidelines note that a breach of other legislation, such as therapeutic goods law, may form the basis for disciplinary action.

Frequently asked questions

Are the December 2020 guidelines still in force?

Yes. As at October 2026 they remain the current general advertising guidelines. Ahpra says they will be updated for the 2022 penalty increases and the “surgeon” title protection when they are next reviewed.

Can we show any patient reviews at all?

Reviews that do not refer to clinical aspects, such as comments about friendly staff or easy parking, are not testimonials and may be used. Ahpra’s testimonial guidance says publishing complete and unedited reviews that are not testimonials helps avoid a breach.

Our agency writes our content. Who is responsible?

The advertiser is whoever controls the advertising, which includes directing a marketing agency to draft or publish it. The guidelines say advertisers must check content produced by others on their behalf.

Do we have to get bad or clinical reviews removed from Google?

The guidelines say advertisers are not responsible for removing reviews published on platforms they do not control. The issue is whether you use or promote them in your advertising.

What happens if Ahpra receives a complaint about our ads?

For a low-risk first matter, the strategy says Ahpra will write to you with resources and a timeframe to fix the advertising. Repeated or unfixed breaches can lead to audits, a show cause process and conditions on registration. High-risk matters can go straight to prosecution or disciplinary action.

Need a hand?

If you would like a second set of eyes on your website, profiles and ads against these guidelines, our AHPRA compliance audit works through each channel and gives you a list of specific changes. If you need treatment pages rewritten so claims are accurate and supportable, see our compliant content service.

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