Compliance Guide for Health Professionals
Australian regulations for advertising and online reviews
Advertising Rules for Health Professionals
TL;DR - Ahpra Advertising Guidelines
Under section 133 of the National Law, you must not advertise in a way that:
"(a) is false, misleading or deceptive... (b) offers a gift, discount or other inducement... unless the advertisement also states the terms and conditions... (c) uses testimonials... (d) creates an unreasonable expectation of beneficial treatment; or (e) directly or indirectly encourages the indiscriminate or unnecessary use of regulated health services." (p.21)
- 1. False or misleading: Claims must be accurate and supported by acceptable evidence (peer-reviewed research).
- 2. Title misuse: Only use "specialist" with registration. "Dr" must state profession if not a medical practitioner.
- 3. Gifts/discounts: Any inducement must clearly state conditions.
- 4. Testimonials: Cannot publish patient reviews about clinical outcomes on platforms you control. Third-party platforms (e.g. Google) are OK.
- 5. Unrealistic expectations: No "guaranteed results", "miracle cure", "risk-free", or misleading before/after images.
- 6. Unnecessary treatment: No artificial urgency or promoting treatment without clinical indication.
What this means for Health Professionals
- Provide factual, evidence-based information
- List qualifications accurately
- Have third-party reviews you do not control
- Offer discounts with clear terms
- Invite patients to provide feedback or leave a review on independent third-party platforms, provided you do not publish, republish, edit or otherwise use testimonials in advertising you control
- Use testimonials in advertising you control
- Exaggerate outcomes
- Imply specialist status without registration
- Guarantee results
- Create unnecessary urgency
- Encourage treatment without clinical need
1. No False or Misleading Claims
"Advertisers... must be able to substantiate claims made in advertising." (p.10)
In practice:
- Claims must be supported by acceptable evidence (generally peer-reviewed research).
- No exaggeration of outcomes.
- No selective or incomplete comparisons.
- No implying skills, qualifications or registration you do not hold.
- If you claim something works, you must be able to defend it scientifically.
2. Titles and Specialist Claims
You cannot claim to be a specialist unless you hold recognised specialist registration.
A practitioner may not "claim to be a 'specialist'... when they do not hold specialist registration." (p.11)
Using words like "specialist", "specialises in", or similar may mislead the public if you are not registered as such.
Use of "Dr"
If 'Dr' is used and does not refer to a registered medical practitioner, "the profession... should be made clear." (p.13)
3. Gifts and Discounts
You may advertise discounts or inducements only if:
"the advertisement also states the terms and conditions of the offer." (p.21)
Terms must be clear and accessible (p.14).
You cannot:
- Advertise "free" if costs are recovered elsewhere.
- Hide eligibility restrictions.
- Create misleading offers.
4. Testimonials (Strict Rule)
You must not use testimonials in advertising.
You must not advertise in a way that "uses testimonials or purported testimonials..." (p.21)
A testimonial includes:
"positive statements about the clinical aspects of a regulated health service used in advertising." (p.15)
Clinical aspects include symptoms, diagnosis, treatment, or outcomes (p.15).
What this means:
You cannot:
- Publish patient outcome reviews on your website
- Share clinical "success stories"
- Republish Google reviews
- Use edited or selective reviews
Testimonials that are:
"selectively published or edited, or... fake" are prohibited (p.14).
Third-party sites
The prohibition:
"does not affect patients sharing information... posting reviews on review platforms." (p.15)
You are:
"not responsible for removing... testimonials published on platforms they do not control." (p.16)
If you control the platform, you are responsible.
If you don't control it (e.g. Google), patients may post reviews.
5. No Unrealistic Expectations
You must not:
"create an unreasonable expectation of beneficial treatment." (p.21)
This includes:
- "Guaranteed results"
- "Miracle cure"
- "Risk-free"
- Before/after images implying typical outcomes
Patient stories may also create unreasonable expectations (p.17).
6. No Encouraging Unnecessary Treatment
You must not:
"directly or indirectly encourage the indiscriminate or unnecessary use" of services (p.21)
This includes:
- Creating urgency without clinical basis ("act now")
- Encouraging routine appointments without indication
- Offering large prizes to drive treatment uptake (p.18)
Online Review Laws for Health Professionals
(Australian Consumer Law – ACCC Guidance)
TL;DR – Australian Consumer Law & Health Care Reviews
Under the Australian Consumer Law (ACL) contained in the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth), health care providers must not engage in misleading or deceptive conduct.
When it comes to reviews, this means you must not filter which patients can leave a public review, suppress or delay negative reviews, selectively invite only satisfied patients, or present ratings that do not reflect genuine patient experience.
The law regulates the overall impression created to the public — not just whether a review is fake.
The Legal Foundation
Courts rely primarily on:
- Section 18 – misleading or deceptive conduct
- Section 29 – false or misleading representations
- Section 34 – misleading representations about services
In other words: Your Google rating is legally treated like advertising.
1. Reviews Must Be Genuine
You must not:
- Write reviews for your own practice
- Ask staff or family to post reviews without disclosure
- Edit patient wording
- Publish fabricated testimonials
ACCC guidance makes clear that fake or manipulated reviews breach consumer law.
2. You Cannot Filter Patients Before Giving Them a Review Link (Review-Gating)
This is where many clinics unintentionally breach the law.
Clinic SMS after appointment:
"Were you happy with your visit?"
Patient clicks link → star rating page:
| 5 stars | Sent to Google review page |
| 1–3 stars | Sent to private feedback form |
Why unlawful:
You are controlling which patients can publicly review your service. This creates a rating that appears more favourable than the real patient experience.
Courts have confirmed this principle in cases such as the HealthEngine Federal Court decision, where selective publication of patient reviews was found to mislead consumers.
3. You Cannot Selectively Invite Only "Happy" Patients
Illegal conduct includes:
- Reception only sending review links to patients who verbally said "that was great."
- Emailing review links only to long-term patients.
- Sending review requests only after positive survey responses.
Even without fake reviews, this may breach the law because it distorts the overall public impression.
4. You Cannot Suppress Negative Reviews
You must not:
- Delay publishing negative feedback
- Hide negative reviews
- Display only positive testimonials on your website
- Selectively moderate feedback
If the public sees only favourable feedback, the rating becomes misleading.
5. Incentives Must Not Distort Reviews
The incentive must:
- Apply regardless of rating
- Be clearly disclosed
If the incentive influences only positive reviews, it becomes misleading.
6. Real Cases Relevant to Healthcare
ACCC v HealthEngine Pty Ltd
The Federal Court found that editing and selectively publishing patient reviews misled consumers.
The Court recognised that patients may choose practitioners based on online reviews, making accuracy especially important in healthcare contexts.
Penalty: $2.9 millionACCC v Meriton Serviced Apartments Pty Ltd
The Federal Court found that preventing certain guests from receiving TripAdvisor review invitations was misleading.
The Court held that interfering with who can leave a review can distort the overall rating and mislead consumers — even if no fake reviews are written.
This case established the legal principle that manipulating review access itself can breach consumer law.
Penalty: $3 million7. Practical Healthcare Scenarios
Scenario 1 – Physiotherapy Clinic
"Please leave us a Google review."
"Rate your experience first."
Happy → Google
Unhappy → internal complaint form
Scenario 2 – Psychology Practice
Scenario 3 – Dental Practice Survey
"You may also leave a public review here."
(shown to every respondent)
What This Means for Health Professionals
- Send the same Google review link to every patient
- Invite patients to provide feedback
- Run patient satisfaction surveys
- Provide a complaints pathway
- Respond professionally to negative reviews
- Decide who gets a Google review link
- Require a positive response before showing review platforms
- Divert unhappy patients away from public review sites
- Inflate ratings through filtering
- Present a public rating that does not reflect real patient experience
Why Healthcare Is Treated Seriously
Patients often rely heavily on reviews when choosing practitioners. Courts recognise that misleading ratings can influence important health decisions.
For that reason, regulators may take manipulation of reviews in healthcare particularly seriously.
If your system changes which patients are able to publicly review your service, it likely breaches Australian Consumer Law.
(This guide provides general information only and is not legal advice. Refer to ACCC guidance for full regulatory detail.)