Get your free AHPRA & TGA compliance scorecard

No testimonials or purported testimonials -- real or fabricated patient endorsements about the service are banned outright, not just misleading ones.s.133(1)(c) — Health Practitioner Regulation National Law, s.133 (Advertising) — source ↗

Ads for a regulated health service must not be false, misleading, or deceptive -- or even just likely to mislead or deceive, which is a lower bar than actual deception. Maximum penalty $60,000 (individual) / $120,000 (body corporate) per offence.s.133(1)(a) — Health Practitioner Regulation National Law, s.133 (Advertising) — source ↗

Ads can't set up an unrealistic expectation that the treatment will work, even without an explicit guarantee -- the impression created matters, not just the literal words.s.133(1)(d) — Health Practitioner Regulation National Law, s.133 (Advertising) — source ↗

You can offer a gift, discount, or other inducement -- but only if the ad also states the terms and conditions of that offer. An inducement with no stated terms breaches this limb outright, regardless of whether the inducement itself is otherwise fine. Note this is a distinct limb from indiscriminate-use incentive rules (s.133(1)(e)) -- this one is purely about missing/misleading T&Cs on an otherwise-permitted offer.s.133(1)(b) — Health Practitioner Regulation National Law, s.133 (Advertising) — source ↗

Before/after (and other outcome) images must not be filtered/airbrushed to look better than reality, must not use uncredited models/celebrities implying they had the procedure, and must carry a prominent individual-results-may-vary warning. Whether an image is 'misleading' or a warning is 'prominent' enough requires visual judgment this text-only engine cannot make -- flagged as a known limitation (SPEC.md Part 2, Layer 5 'known-limits register').Section 13 (Good practice in advertising higher risk cosmetic procedures) -- Use of images including 'before and after' images — Guidelines for advertising higher risk non-surgical cosmetic procedures (AHPRA & National Boards, 2025) — source ↗

Only practitioners who actually hold specialist registration or an endorsement may use a specialist title (or claim to be qualified for one) in advertising -- whether directly or implied, and whether about themselves or the business name. Misuse is a National Law offence with penalties that can include imprisonment for an individual. Note this is deterministic only once registration status is known -- the engine cannot verify a practitioner's actual registration from ad text alone, so this rule is judgment-type: text can only be *flagged* for review, not conclusively verified.Section 4.1.4 / 4.1.4.a (Titles and claims about registration, competence and qualifications) — Guidelines for advertising a regulated health service (AHPRA & National Boards) — source ↗

Distinct from the branded-drug prohibition (poisons-standard.semaglutide-glp1-schedule4): compounded/generic semaglutide and tirzepatide are not just unadvertisable prescription medicines, they're not even LEGAL to compound at all as of 1 October 2024 -- the extemporaneous-compounding exemption pharmacists usually rely on was specifically removed for this drug class. TGA is actively enforcing this (3,000+ ads removed and 10 infringement notices issued in the 2024-2025 financial year per TGA's own reporting). "Compounded semaglutide/tirzepatide", "compounded weight loss injection" and similar phrasing should be treated as an even higher-confidence breach than a bare branded-drug mention, since it implies both an advertising breach and a potentially unlawful supply chain.Sections: Supplying compounded medicines (Extemporaneously compounded medicines); Requirements for specific compounding activities and products (GLP-1); Advertising compounded medicines — TGA -- Manufacturing, supplying and advertising compounded medicines lawfully — source ↗

No. Licet reads text only — it can flag when before/after language appears without a required disclaimer, but it can't look at an image itself, so it can't judge whether a photo has been filtered, airbrushed, or otherwise made to look better than reality. That's a visual judgment call left to you.

No. Licet can flag when a specialist title or registration claim appears in your ad text, but it has no access to AHPRA's public register to confirm whether that claim is actually true. Titles and registration claims should always be checked against the real register directly.