V4
AI-POWERED
AHPRA s.133 + TGA

Advertising Compliance Review

Licet — an educational resource to help you understand AHPRA and TGA advertising standards. Covers IV infusion therapy, cosmetic injectables, skin treatments, and all regulated health services. Eight tools: Compliance Checker, Evidence Checker, Promotions, TGA Schedule, Before/After, Influencer/UGC, Titles, and Scope of Practice.

Regulator
AHPRA & National Boards
Legislation
National Law s.133
Analysis
Regex + AI + Letter
Enforcement letter / specific undertakings
Layer 3

Attach your AHPRA enforcement letter or agreed undertakings. Every check will be cross-referenced against your specific obligations.

Drop file here or browse
PDF, Word (.docx), or plain text — max 10MB
Content to review
0 characters
Review history
0 checks
No checks run yet.
Audit trail
Layer 5
No checks recorded yet.
Product name checker
New

AHPRA flags treatment names that imply benefit — "Immunity", "Weight Loss", "Energy Support". Check any name before using it.

Google review checker
New

Responding to reviews that mention clinical outcomes incorporates them as testimonials in your advertising. Check before responding.

Analysis layers
Layer 1 — Regex pattern scan 40+ patterns drawn from AHPRA s.133, TGA Act, and published AHPRA enforcement guidance.
Layer 2 — Claude AI semantic review Overall impression, paraphrased violations, implied claims.
Layer 3 — Enforcement letter cross-check Cross-references your specific AHPRA obligations and agreed undertakings.
Layer 5 — Audit trail Timestamped log of every check. Exportable as CSV for compliance records.
Layer 7 — Rewrite example AI-generated illustrative rewrite for any flagged content, re-checked against the same rules before being shown.
Service or product?

Almost every judgment in cosmetic injectable advertising routes through one question: does this promote the health service (the consultation, the practitioner, the clinic), or the prescription-only product (the Schedule 4 injectable itself)? Content on the service side is where the rules permit; naming, describing, pricing, or visually demonstrating the product tips it onto the prohibited side — even if the intent was to promote a service.

What pulls content onto the "product" side
  • Named product reference — brand names, logos, or sound-alike nicknames (e.g. "babytox"). Disguising the name doesn't remove the signal.
  • Generic product terms — "anti-wrinkle injections", "dermal fillers", "fat-dissolving injections" describe the product, not a service.
  • Price tied to the injectable, including per-unit pricing — public price lists (even in reception) carry the same signal.
  • Testimonials or endorsements about the service or product, paid or unpaid, including influencer content.
  • Before/after imagery implying a specific medicine produced the result — context-dependent, not automatically prohibited.
  • Discounts or inducements on the injectable without full terms stated.
  • Product hashtags, even buried in a caption.
  • "Educational" content that in substance funnels toward booking a specific product.
Two things worth knowing
  • A private consultation carve-out exists for practitioner-patient communication — it does not extend to public-facing material, including reception displays.
  • Accountability follows the clinic's name, not the author — delegating to an agency or social media manager doesn't move responsibility off the practitioner.
Educational only — not a compliance determination. Whether specific content is lawful is a determination for you and your regulatory or legal adviser.
What kind of claim is this?

The Advertising Code sorts claims into tiers — the tier decides whether a claim is fine-if-accurate, needs prior approval, or is off-limits. An "advertisement" is broad: any statement or image, on a website, packaging or point-of-sale, intended to promote use or supply.

Tier 0 — General requirements (always live)

Accurate, balanced, not misleading, no unrealistic expectations or minimised risk — applies to everything, even an otherwise-permitted claim.

Tier 1 — Prohibited representations

A fixed list — cancer, mental illness, STIs, HIV/AIDS, hepatitis C, abortifacient action. No approval pathway for public advertising, regardless of phrasing.

Tier 2 — Restricted representations

A "serious form" of a disease/condition that needs diagnosis or supervision — usable only with prior TGA approval. The definition of "serious form" has been under active regulatory consultation, so treat this tier as genuinely grey rather than a fixed list.

Tier 3 — Prescription-medicine prohibition

Direct or indirect advertising of prescription-only medicines to the public is prohibited outright. This is the tier behind the "Service or product?" pattern above.

Tier 4 — Mandatory statements & conditional rules

Where a claim is permitted, the Code may still require accompanying statements, and imposes its own rules on testimonials, samples and incentives — separate from AHPRA's own testimonial ban.

Educational only — not a compliance determination. Tiers stack (Tier 0 always applies on top of whichever else does); describes the framework's general rule, not a ruling on your specific content.
Running this on Google Ads?

Satisfying AHPRA/TGA law is necessary but not sufficient on Google Ads — Google enforces its own Healthcare and Medicines Policy independently, and it enforces at the account level. This is a private platform rule, not government regulation — the checks above don't cover it.

What Google's policy adds on top
  • Prescription-drug terms are restricted by default in ad copy, landing pages, and keywords for Australia-targeted ads.
  • Certification is required for prescription-drug services, online pharmacies, or telemedicine — category-dependent, check the specific type needed.
  • Speculative or unproven treatment claims are prohibited from promotion outright.
  • Location targeting interacts with policy — what's permitted in one country may not be for Australia.
Why this matters more than it looks

The landing page is part of the ad — Google scans destinations, not just ad text, so a compliant-looking ad pointing at a page with prescription-drug terms can still trip the policy. And because enforcement hits the whole account, a single breach can take down unrelated campaigns too — a materially different risk from a one-off regulatory notice.

Educational only — not affiliated with or endorsed by Google. Route to the current Google Ads policy help pages and certification portal rather than treating this as settled.
What actually draws regulator action

Rules tell you what's prohibited; enforcement patterns tell you what regulators actually pursue. The TGA has named unapproved therapeutic goods in cosmetic procedures a stated compliance priority for 2026–2027, and AHPRA investigated roughly 360 non-surgical cosmetic notifications between September 2022 and March 2025.

The breach-pattern catalogue
  • Advertising a prescription-only injectable to the public — see "Service or product?" above; the TGA has issued infringement notices specifically for this on social platforms.
  • Unlawful importation of unapproved injectables — vials/syringes not on the ARTG, including parallel-imported or counterfeit product; frequently paired with the advertising breach above. (This app checks advertising content, not supply chains — flagged here for awareness, not detected.)
  • Supply of scheduled substances outside lawful channels — see "Why is this scheduled?" on the TGA Schedule Checker.
  • Testimonials and influencer endorsements — see "Service or product?" signal D and Tier 4 above.
  • Restricted/prohibited representations without approval — see Tiers 1–2 above.
  • Misleading or unrealistic-expectation claims — see Tier 0 above; also engages the Australian Consumer Law.
  • Advertiser-responsibility failures — non-compliant content published by an agency or influencer in the clinic's name; the practitioner stays accountable regardless.
  • Platform-policy breaches — see "Running this on Google Ads?" above; a separate, account-level failure mode.
Penalty ranges (illustrative, published)

Treat as orders of magnitude, not precise figures. Infringement notices (pay-without-admission) typically run roughly $5,000–$13,000+ per contravention, often stacked. Maximum civil penalties reach into the millions — on the order of ~$1.5m for an individual, ~$15m+ for a body corporate at the maxima. Criminal offences exist in tiers and can carry imprisonment. Most real-world action to date has been infringement notices, but the enforcement trend is upward.

Educational only — de-identified patterns, not named individuals. Figures are illustrative of published ranges and change over time; confirm current specifics against the TGA's published compliance and enforcement outcomes.
Rules applied
AHPRA Compliance Assistant
Ask about rules, flags, or rewrites
Hi — I can answer questions about AHPRA s.133, TGA advertising rules, or explain any flags from your last compliance check. What would you like to know?

Research Evidence Checker

Upload or paste a research article. Claude assesses it against the six AHPRA acceptable evidence factors and tells you whether it can support an advertising claim — and how to frame it if so.

Framework
AHPRA Acceptable Evidence
Factors assessed
Source, Relevance, Inclusion, Level, Quality, Strength
Research article or document
Be specific. The more precisely you state the claim, the more accurately it can be assessed.
Drop file here or browse
PDF, Word (.docx), or plain text — max 10MB
AHPRA evidence factors
Full guidance ↗
Automatically unacceptable

AHPRA states these will never constitute acceptable evidence for advertising claims:

Animal studies / in vitro studies (no human subjects)
Before-and-after studies with few or no controls
Self-assessment studies
Anecdotal evidence / single case reports
Uncontrolled audits or outcome studies
Studies not applicable to your target population
Assessment history
0 assessments
No assessments run yet.

Promotion & Inducement Checker

Under s.133(1)(b) of the National Law, gifts, discounts and inducements are only lawful if terms and conditions are stated clearly alongside them. This tool checks whether your promotion is lawful, and if so, whether the T&Cs are complete and compliant.

Your promotion
s.133(1)(b) — Inducement rules

Any gift, discount or other inducement offered to attract a person to use a regulated health service must state the terms and conditions of the offer alongside it.

Always prohibited
Free IV as a prize, competition entry, or bundled add-on without clinical indication. Group deals encouraging non-clinically-indicated use.
Lawful only with full T&Cs
Discounts, packages, memberships, multi-buy offers — must have clear, accessible T&Cs stated in or directly linked from the ad.
T&Cs must be
Plain language · Accurate and honest · Easily accessible (not buried) · Include offer period, eligibility, and limitations.
AHPRA enforcement examples
✕ Cited in your AHPRA letter
"Cosmetic patients receive ONE IV Infusion FREE" — free bundled service, no clinical indication, indiscriminate use.
✕ Cited in your AHPRA letter
"When you come in together, you'll both receive 10% off" — group promotion, no T&Cs, encourages indiscriminate use.
✕ AHPRA general breach
Prize draw where IV sessions are raffle prizes — encouraged use without clinical indication.
✓ Lower-risk phrasing example
"10% off your second appointment. Valid until 30 June. Offer applies to returning patients. Full terms at [yourclinic.com.au/terms]. All treatments require prior clinical assessment by our practitioners."

TGA Schedule / ARTG Checker

Some IV ingredients are scheduled substances under the Poisons Standard. Schedule 4 and Schedule 8 substances — including glutathione — cannot be advertised to the public at all, regardless of how the claim is framed. Enter your infusion ingredients to check advertising restrictions.

Infusion ingredients

Add each active ingredient in your IV infusion, IM injection, cosmetic injectable, or skin treatment product. Include all vitamins, minerals, amino acids, and any other therapeutic substances.

Schedule reference
Schedule 4 — Prescription only
Cannot be advertised to the public at all. Includes glutathione (when in IV form). Prescription required. TGA confirmed IV glutathione advertising is prohibited.
Schedule 8 — Controlled drug
Strictly controlled. Cannot be advertised to the public. Requires specialist prescription in most cases.
Schedule 3 — Pharmacist only
Cannot be advertised to the public unless in Appendix H of the Poisons Standard. Advertising without TGA permission is prohibited.
Unscheduled / Schedule 2
Generally advertisable subject to AHPRA and TGA Advertising Code requirements. Claims still need acceptable evidence.
Why is this scheduled?

Most people picture a fixed "list of scheduled nutrients." A substance can actually be pulled into Schedule 4 by either or both of two pathways — understanding this helps you reason about any ingredient, not just the ones on a static list.

Pathway A — Named entry

The molecule itself is listed by name in the Poisons Standard, usually with a dose threshold or form qualifier. Only a small number of vitamins sit here — Vitamin D is the classic example, where lower doses sit in Schedule 3 and higher doses cross into Schedule 4.

Pathway B — Route-driven

The molecule may be unscheduled as an oral supplement, but the sterile injectable/parenteral preparation is a prescription medicine because of the route itself — not the molecule. This is the dominant pathway for IV/IM substances. A useful default: an injectable preparation is commonly treated as prescription-only, because the parenteral route plus the product being a registered or compounded prescription medicine tends to pull it in. Named-entry vitamins are an exception layer on top of this, not the main event.

Educational only — not a compliance determination. The status of any specific product is form- and route-specific; confirm against the current Poisons Standard and the product's ARTG/compounding status with your own adviser.
Device or medicine?

"Cosmetic treatment" isn't one regulatory bucket. The anchor question: how does the treatment achieve its effect — a substance acting pharmacologically (medicine), a physical/mechanical/energy mechanism (device), or appearance-only cosmetic action (often outside the TGA)?

Lane M — Medicine

Pharmacological, immunological or metabolic effect. Botulinum toxins, dermal fillers, fat-dissolving injectables, skin-booster injectables. Most are Schedule 4 — triggers the full prescription-medicine advertising prohibition.

Lane D — Medical device

Physical/mechanical means — energy, light, mechanical action. Lasers, IPL, radiofrequency, HIFU, cryolipolysis, microneedling, LED. Regulated under the device framework (ARTG inclusion, classification), not the medicine schedules — but the ad can only claim what the device's ARTG entry actually covers. Claiming a use outside that entry is an off-label advertising breach in its own right.

Lane C — Cosmetic / outside the TGA

Appearance-only topicals with no therapeutic claim or triggering ingredient — see "Cosmetic claim or therapeutic claim?" below for where this tips into Lane M. Some cases straddle lanes (a medicine-impregnated dressing, PRP depending on processing) — these need specific TGA boundary guidance, not a forced lane assignment.

Educational only — not a compliance determination. Classification is a determination for the sponsor and their adviser, against current TGA guidance.
Cosmetic claim or therapeutic claim?

A topical or skincare product can sit in either regime depending on how it's described. The anchor question: does the claim describe a change to appearance (cosmetic), or a change to a physiological process, disease, ailment or defect (therapeutic)?

Leans cosmeticLeans therapeutic
"Helps skin look even and smooth""Reduces skin pigmentation"
"Hydrates dry-looking skin""Repairs the skin barrier to treat eczema"
"Reduces appearance of blemishes""Treats and clears acne"

Two things that can decide it regardless of wording:

  • Ingredients — e.g. a sunscreen agent above SPF 15, or hydroquinone, pull a product toward therapeutic regardless of how it's described.
  • A therapeutic claim requires ARTG inclusion — making one on a non-ARTG "cosmetic" is a double problem: wrong regime, and an unlawful representation.
Educational only — not a compliance determination. Classification is form- and claim-specific; confirm against current TGA guidance with your own adviser.
Prescription infusions: one rule, four products

Iron infusions, Aclasta, Vyepti and Intralipid are all registered, Schedule 4 prescription-only medicines given by injection or infusion — the same trigger every time, so the advertising logic is identical across all four; only the listing details and product-specific flag differ.

Registered ≠ listed. None of these are listed medicines (AUST L, the low-risk complementary pathway) — they're registered (AUST R), the higher-scrutiny prescription pathway. PBS listing is a separate concept again — public subsidy, not market authorisation. And these are therapeutic, not cosmetic — the AHPRA cosmetic-procedure guidelines don't govern here; the TGA prescription-medicine prohibition plus the general AHPRA advertising rules (National Law s133) do.

Iron infusions (Ferinject, Monofer, Venofer, etc.)

Leans product: promoting "iron infusions" as a bookable product, with pricing, or as a generic energy/wellness boost. Leans service: a consultation to assess and manage diagnosed iron deficiency. Flag: the registered indication is laboratory-confirmed iron deficiency — "energy/wellness" framing risks the prescription-medicine line and a separate misleading-claim line.

Aclasta (zoledronic acid)

Leans product: naming "Aclasta" or "zoledronic acid" in public marketing. Leans service: a bone-health consultation and infusion service, without naming the medicine. Flag: osteoporosis/Paget's references can engage the restricted-representation tier if framed around a serious form of the condition — route through the "What kind of claim is this?" panel on the Advertising Compliance Review tab.

Vyepti (eptinezumab)

Leans product: naming "Vyepti" or "eptinezumab", or describing the specific migraine-prevention product. Leans service: a migraine-management consultation/infusion service. Flag: migraine framed as a serious neurological condition can engage the restricted-representation tier (prior TGA approval needed) — same routing as Aclasta.

Intralipid (lipid emulsion)

Leans product: promoting "Intralipid infusions" as a standalone bookable wellness product. Leans service: clinically-indicated parenteral-nutrition support under medical supervision. Flag: the highest-caution profile of the four — offered outside parenteral nutrition (or the recognised local-anaesthetic-toxicity antidote use), it's off-label use of a prescription medicine, compounding the advertising exposure with a likely misleading-claim issue.

Educational only — not a compliance determination. ARTG registrations, sponsors, PBS listings and registered indications change; confirm against the live ARTG record, current PBS schedule, and current TGA/AHPRA instruments.
Common IV ingredients
IV Infusion Ingredients
Glutathione (IV)S4 — PROHIBITED
Vitamin C (IV, high-dose)Route-driven — verify
Magnesium / minerals (IV)Route-driven — verify
B12 / B-complex (injectable)Route-driven — verify
NAD+ (IV, high dose)Route-driven — verify
Alpha Lipoic Acid (IV)Route-driven — verify
Amino acids (IV/IM)Route-driven — verify
PhosphatidylcholineVerify current schedule
Cosmetic Injectables
Botulinum toxin (ALL brands)S4 — PROHIBITED
Hyaluronic acid fillersARTG required
PDO threadsARTG required
Deoxycholic acid (fat dissolving)S4 — verify
Platelet-rich plasma (PRP)Assess — TGA guidance
Skin Treatment Substances
Tretinoin / Retinoic acidS4 — PROHIBITED
Hydroquinone >2%S4 — PROHIBITED
Hydroquinone ≤2%S3 — restricted
Azelaic acid ≤15%Unscheduled
Salicylic acid (cosmetic %)Unscheduled
Laser / energy devicesARTG — check class

Before / After Image Compliance

Before and after images in health advertising can constitute false or misleading advertising or create unreasonable expectations of beneficial treatment. AHPRA sets specific conditions under which they are less likely to be in breach. This tool walks you through every condition.

Image compliance assessment
AHPRA s.133
AHPRA conditions for B/A images

Before/after images are less likely to be misleading if they meet all of these conditions:

Show realistic, typical outcomes — not cherry-picked best results
Not retouched or enhanced beyond the actual result
Accompanied by risk disclosure and typical outcome information
Patient consent obtained and documented
Contextual information (treatment type, number of sessions) provided
Lighting and photography conditions are consistent between images
Do not imply results are typical or guaranteed
Do not use celebrities, influencers, or aspirational imagery
For IV therapy specifically

IV therapy and IM injections rarely produce visible physical outcomes that could be shown in a before/after image — making most before/after use in this context inherently problematic. Any visible skin, hair, or body composition claim in a B/A image compounds the underlying benefit claim breach.

Before/after images are very high risk under AHPRA s.133(a) (false/misleading) and s.133(d) (unreasonable expectation of benefit) across all service types. For cosmetic and skin treatment services, consistent photography standards are critical. If in doubt, do not use them.

Influencer & UGC Classifier

Tagging a clinic in a post can make it your advertising under the National Law. This tool classifies whether content constitutes advertising, whether you're responsible for it, and whether it contains a prohibited testimonial or clinical claim.

Content to classify
When you're responsible

You are the advertiser — and therefore responsible — if you have control over the content. AHPRA's definition of control is broad:

✕ You authored or approved the post
✕ The influencer tagged your business at your request or arrangement
✕ You paid for or gifted treatment in exchange for a post
✕ You reposted, shared, or linked to the content
✕ You responded to a Google review incorporating clinical outcome language
✓ Organic post on a platform you don't control where you have no arrangement with the poster
Clinical aspect test

A testimonial exists when content references a clinical aspect of care. AHPRA defines clinical aspects as:

Symptoms experienced or improved
Diagnosis or condition mentioned
Treatment outcome or benefit
How they felt before or after treatment
✓ Customer service or communication style (OK)
✓ Clinic environment, comfort, or ambience (OK)
✓ Booking process or staff friendliness (OK)

Title & Qualification Checker

Using the wrong title in advertising can constitute a criminal offence under the National Law's protected title provisions, or be misleading under s.133(a). This tool checks a practitioner's title and qualification claims against the protected-title rules for their registration type.

Practitioner details
Title protection rules
Protected titles — criminal offence to misuse
Doctor, Nurse, Midwife, Physiotherapist, Pharmacist, Psychologist, Chiropractor, Osteopath, Optometrist, Dentist, Paramedic and others. Registration in that profession is required.
"Surgeon" — 2024 amendment
Only practitioners with specialist registration in surgery, obstetrics/gynaecology, or ophthalmology may use "surgeon". GPs with cosmetic training cannot use "cosmetic surgeon".
"Specialist" / "specialises in"
Implies AHPRA recognised specialist registration. If you don't hold it, this language is misleading. Use "substantial experience in" or "working primarily in" instead.
Acceptable descriptors
"Substantial experience in", "working primarily in", "interest in", "additional training in" — factual, non-specialist language that doesn't imply AHPRA registration.
Aesthetic medicine examples
✕ "Cosmetic Surgeon" (if not specialist registered) — banned under 2024 National Law amendment. GPs cannot use this title.
✕ "IV Specialist" / "Injection Specialist" — implies specialist registration that doesn't exist as an AHPRA category
✕ "Anti-aging Expert" / "Skin Specialist" — same issue, implies AHPRA specialist registration
✕ "Aesthetic Surgeon" or "Cosmetic Physician" without specialist registration — misleading as to qualifications
✓ "Registered Nurse — cosmetic injectable treatments" — accurate, factual, no specialist implication
✓ "GP with substantial experience in cosmetic injectable procedures" — accurate, specific, non-specialist framing
✓ "Aesthetic Injector — Registered Nurse" — describes the role accurately without implying specialist registration

Scope of Practice Checker

Who is legally permitted to perform which procedures — and how those procedures can be advertised. This tool checks whether a practitioner's registration type permits them to perform a given treatment, and flags where advertising that treatment engages scope-of-practice rules.

Procedure details
Key scope rules
Anti-wrinkle injections (botulinum toxin)
S4 — requires a prescription. Only medical practitioners can prescribe. RNs and NPs can administer under a valid prescription. Beauty therapists and unregistered practitioners CANNOT legally administer.
Dermal fillers
Regulation varies by state. In most states, medical practitioners are required. NSW and QLD have specific requirements. RNs may administer in some contexts with appropriate oversight.
Laser and IPL treatments
Class 3B and 4 lasers require operator training and in some states medical oversight. Beauty therapists may operate lower-class devices. Check your state's radiation safety legislation.
IV infusions
Intravenous procedures are invasive and must be performed by a registered health practitioner (RN, NP, or medical practitioner). Oversight requirements vary by state and clinical context.
Prescription requirements
Any S4 or S8 substance (botulinum toxin, tretinoin, hydroquinone >2%) requires a valid prescription from an authorised prescriber — typically a medical practitioner.
Advertising scope obligations

Advertising must accurately represent who performs the treatment and their qualifications. Key rules:

Cannot advertise a procedure a practitioner is not legally permitted to perform
Cannot imply medical supervision when none exists
Cannot use "medically supervised" if the supervision does not meet the required standard
Must accurately describe who performs the treatment (title, registration)
✓ Stating "administered by registered nurses under doctor supervision" — accurate and appropriate
✓ Stating clinical assessment is required before treatment — appropriate and encouraged