Advertising a regulated health service in Australia is governed by section 133 of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law, and it does not work the way most clinic marketing assumes. The testimonial ban is narrower than the folklore. The title rules are wider. And the regulator most likely to fine you is not Ahpra.<\/p>\n
This page sets out what the statute actually says, quoted, with penalties taken from the legislation rather than from guidance documents. Neomeric is a Melbourne-based AI product company and the team behind NeoMind<\/a>, Australia’s onshore AI teammates platform. We publish this because clinic copy is among the most heavily constrained marketing in the country and the constraints are poorly documented outside the statute itself.<\/p>\n Verified against live legislation and regulator sources on 23 September 2026.<\/strong> This is general information, not legal advice.<\/p>\n Section 133 of the National Law provides that a person must not advertise a regulated health service, or a business that provides one, in a way that:<\/p>\n The maximum penalty is $60,000 for an individual and $120,000 for a body corporate<\/strong>, per offence. These are fixed dollar amounts written into the statute, not penalty units, and they were raised from $5,000 and $10,000 by amendments in 2022.<\/p>\n Two structural features matter. Section 133(1) binds “a person” — not only registered practitioners. Section 133(2) provides a narrow shelter: a person does not commit an offence merely because, as part of their business, they print or publish<\/em> an advertisement for another person. And section 133(3) allows a court to have regard to a National Board guideline when deciding whether the section has been breached, which is how Ahpra’s guidelines acquire practical force.<\/p>\n Mostly no, and the widespread belief that they do causes real harm to legitimate clinics.<\/p>\n Ahpra’s Guidelines for advertising a regulated health service<\/a> state plainly that advertisers are not responsible for removing, or trying to have removed, testimonials published on platforms they do not control<\/strong>, or on sites that are not advertising a regulated health service. The guidelines add that the prohibition does not affect patients sharing information, expressing views online or posting reviews on review platforms, and does not affect how the public can interact with review sites or discussion forums.<\/p>\n So an unsolicited Google review left by a patient does not have to come down. What is<\/em> your responsibility is a reviews widget on your own website, or a reviews function on a social media page you control — Ahpra’s stated remedy there is disabling the reviews or testimonials function.<\/p>\n The definition is also narrower than people assume. The National Law does not define “testimonial”, so Ahpra applies the ordinary meaning: a recommendation or positive statement about the clinical aspects<\/strong> of the service. A clinical aspect exists where the comment expresses a symptom<\/em> (the reason for seeking treatment), a diagnosis or treatment<\/em> provided, or an outcome<\/em>, including the skills or experience of the practitioner. Comments about customer service or communication style that do not reference clinical aspects are not testimonials. “Reception staff were lovely and parking was easy” is not a testimonial. “My back pain was gone in two sessions” is.<\/p>\n On engaging with reviews, be accurate about the strength of the rule. Ahpra says a provider should take care<\/em> if they choose to engage with reviews on a third-party site, as this may be considered<\/em> using a testimonial to advertise. That is a caution, not an offence provision. Anyone telling you that liking a Google review is an offence is overstating the guidance.<\/p>\n Section 113 of the National Law makes it an offence to knowingly or recklessly take or use a protected title in a way that could reasonably be expected to induce a belief that the person is registered in that profession, unless they are. Maximum penalty: $60,000 or three years imprisonment or both<\/strong> for an individual, $120,000 for a body corporate.<\/p>\n Section 113(3) is what gives this teeth in marketing: the section applies whether the title is used with or without any other words, and in English or any other language. So a compound like “cosmetic nurse” does not escape the protection attaching to “nurse”.<\/p>\n Three protected titles catch clinic copy repeatedly:<\/p>\n Two qualifications that a careful page has to carry. The offence has a mental element — “knowingly or recklessly” — and a contextual test, so it is not strict liability on the bare appearance of a word. And for someone who is<\/em> a registered nurse, “cosmetic nurse” is not a section 113 problem at all; it becomes a problem only if it implies a specialist registration or endorsement they do not hold, which is section 133(1)(a) territory.<\/p>\n Separately, section 115A now restricts the title “surgeon”<\/strong> to medical practitioners in a surgical class. Ahpra states that medical practitioners with general registration, or specialist registration in a different specialty such as general practice or dermatology, cannot call themselves “surgeon” — including “cosmetic surgeon”. Dentists’ use of “dental surgeon” is preserved by section 115A(3)(b).<\/p>\n Only three professions have specialist registration under the National Law: medicine, dentistry and podiatry<\/strong>. Ahpra’s guidance is that advertising using “specialist”, “specialises in”, “specialty” or “specialised” implies the practitioner holds specialist registration and is likely to mislead if they do not.<\/p>\n Ahpra names its own preferred substitutes: “substantial experience in”<\/strong> or “working primarily in”<\/strong>. Its worked example is a chiropractor — “Dr Lopez is a specialist in paediatric chiropractic care” is a potential breach; “Dr Lopez has substantial experience working with musculoskeletal issues in children” is not.<\/p>\n There is an exception worth knowing, because a blanket ban is the wrong rule. Where a National Board acknowledges further education awarded by a professional college, as in physiotherapy, a reference to that qualification is permitted provided the award is clearly specified. Ahpra’s own example: “P Smith, Specialist Musculoskeletal Physiotherapist (as awarded by the Australian College of Physiotherapists in 2008)”.<\/p>\n One change is imminent. Ahpra has announced that the specialist title “podiatric surgeon” will be replaced by “surgical podiatrist”<\/strong>, with practitioners unable to use the former title after 5 October 2026. As at the date of this page, that is still twelve days away and “podiatric surgeon” remains the current title.<\/p>\n On 2 September 2025, fifteen National Boards issued Guidelines for advertising higher risk non-surgical cosmetic procedures<\/em> under section 39 of the National Law — 48 numbered clauses across nine sections.<\/p>\n The scope is unusually broad. The guidelines state that they apply to registered health practitioners, to individuals who are not registered health practitioners<\/em>, and to businesses, partnerships and corporate entities<\/em>. Strictly, guidelines made under section 39 are not themselves law binding a non-practitioner; the binding obligation is section 133, which applies to “a person”, and the guidelines get their force from section 133(3) — a court may have regard to them.<\/p>\n The detail most likely to surprise a dental practice: the guidelines’ list of higher risk cosmetic procedures expressly includes dental veneers<\/strong>, alongside cosmetic injectables such as botulinum toxin and dermal fillers, injection lipolysis, thread lifts, sclerotherapy, platelet rich plasma procedures and hair transplants. A large slice of ordinary cosmetic dentistry marketing now sits inside this framework.<\/p>\n Because the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989 carries penalties two orders of magnitude larger, and because the TGA is actively issuing them.<\/p>\n Sections 42DL, 42DLB and 42DMA all use the same formula: the provision bites where a person advertises, by any means<\/em>, therapeutic goods, or causes the advertising, by any means<\/strong>, of therapeutic goods. The civil penalty provisions in sections 42DLB and 42DMA carry a maximum of 5,000 penalty units for an individual and 50,000 for a body corporate. At the Commonwealth penalty unit value of $364, set by the Crimes (Amount of a Penalty Unit) Instrument 2026 and applying to conduct on or after 1 July 2026, that is $1.82 million and $18.2 million<\/strong>.<\/p>\n Continuing breaches accrue, but not at the headline rate. Sections 42DLB(10A)–(10B) and 42DMA(2A)–(2B) provide that a separate contravention occurs for each day a contravention continues, and that the maximum for each day is 10 per cent<\/strong> of the maximum for the original contravention. For a body corporate that is up to $1.82 million per day, not $18.2 million.<\/p>\n Recent enforcement, stated precisely — these are totals of infringement notices, which are administrative fines paid without admission of liability, not court-ordered penalties:<\/p>\n This is worth stating carefully, because it is a live trap for anyone doing their own research.<\/p>\n The current, still-published Guidelines for advertising a regulated health service<\/em> (December 2020) print the section 133 penalty at clause 1.4 as up to $5,000<\/strong> for an individual and $10,000<\/strong> for a body corporate, and carry a footnote stating that in Western Australia different penalties apply — $30,000 and $60,000. Appendix 1 of the same document reproduces section 133 with the old figures.<\/p>\n All of those numbers are superseded. The 2022 amendments raised the maxima to $60,000 and $120,000, and Western Australia repealed its separate application Act and adopted the Queensland National Law through the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law Application Act 2024 (WA), which commenced on 15 May 2024. The official Western Australian consolidated text reproduces section 133 word for word, including the $60,000 and $120,000 maxima. Ahpra’s own website confirms that as of July 2024 the increased penalties apply in all jurisdictions including Western Australia, and notes that the guidelines will be updated when next reviewed.<\/p>\n The practical lesson generalises: take the number from the Act, not the guidance PDF.<\/p>\n No. The word “disclaimer” does not appear in the advertising guidelines, the cosmetic procedures guidelines, or Ahpra’s titles guidance. Ahpra prescribes substance — accuracy, evidence, and stating the terms and conditions of any offer — not a form of words, and it states that it cannot approve advertising. Any vendor selling you an “Ahpra-approved disclaimer” has invented it.<\/p>\n The closest thing to a mandated disclosure is section 133(1)(b): if an advertisement offers a gift, discount or other inducement, it must also state the terms and conditions of the offer. That is a substantive requirement, not a prescribed sentence. It is also what catches a pharmacy loyalty scheme or a “free eye test” offer — there is no Pharmacy Board rule on loyalty schemes and no Optometry Board rule on free eye tests, but section 133(1)(b) applies to both.<\/p>\n NeoMind’s AI teammates draw on a shared Brain holding your practice’s real registrations, services and terms — so drafts are built from what is true of your clinic rather than from generic copy.<\/p>\n See how the Brain works<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n If the review refers to a clinical aspect — a symptom, a diagnosis or treatment, or an outcome including the practitioner’s skill — re-publishing it in your own advertising is using a testimonial, which section 133(1)(c) prohibits. A review about parking, reception or communication style is not a testimonial.<\/p>\n Yes. Section 133 binds “a person”, not only registered practitioners, which is why a clinic company or a marketing supplier can be within its terms. Section 133(2) shelters someone who merely prints or publishes another person’s advertisement as part of their business.<\/p>\n Only by a medical practitioner in a surgical class under section 115A. Ahpra states expressly that practitioners with general registration, or specialist registration in a different specialty, cannot use “surgeon”, including “cosmetic surgeon”.<\/p>\n Health, medical and cosmetic services do not appear in the ACCC’s 2026–27 annual compliance and enforcement priorities, which focus on areas including environmental claims and greenwashing, and manipulative and false practices in digital markets. But the ACCC’s enduring<\/em> priorities — consumers experiencing vulnerability or disadvantage, and product safety — apply to clinics permanently. Do not read the annual list as an exemption.<\/p>\n The words “advertise” and “advertisement” do not appear anywhere in the Health Insurance Act 1973 or the Health Insurance Regulations 2018. However, section 41C of the Human Services (Medicare) Act 1973 makes it an offence to use the name “Medicare” or a prescribed symbol in connection with a business — including in a sign or advertisement — without written authorisation from the Secretary. Misleading claims about bulk billing remain exposed to section 133(1)(a) and to the Australian Consumer Law.<\/p>\nWhat does section 133 actually prohibit?<\/h2>\n
\n
Do clinics have to remove patient reviews?<\/h2>\n
Which titles are protected?<\/h2>\n
\n
Can a clinic use the word “specialist”?<\/h2>\n
What are the cosmetic procedure advertising rules?<\/h2>\n
Why is the TGA the bigger risk?<\/h2>\n
\n
Why are Ahpra’s own penalty figures wrong?<\/h2>\n
Is there an Ahpra-approved disclaimer?<\/h2>\n
Clinic marketing that starts from your facts<\/h4>\n
Frequently asked questions<\/h2>\n
Can I share a patient’s positive Google review on my clinic’s Facebook page?<\/h3>\n
Does the testimonial ban apply to non-practitioners?<\/h3>\n
Is “cosmetic surgeon” still usable?<\/h3>\n
Are health services an ACCC enforcement priority?<\/h3>\n
Is there a Medicare advertising offence?<\/h3>\n
Sources<\/h2>\n
\n