How does the Australian Consumer Law apply to a medical clinic's marketing?
Schedule 2 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 — the Australian Consumer Law — applies to medical clinics in the same way it applies to any other trade or commerce. The ACCC enforces the prohibitions on misleading or deceptive conduct (s.18), false or misleading representations about services (s.29) and misleading conduct as to the nature of services (s.34). On a single medical advertisement the ACCC and AHPRA jurisdictions overlap — s.18 of the ACL and s.133 of the National Law can both apply, and the regulators routinely refer matters to each other.
Reviewed 2026-05-03Australian Consumer Law (Sch 2 Competition and Consumer Act 2010), s.18(1).
A person must not, in trade or commerce, engage in conduct that is misleading or deceptive or is likely to mislead or deceive.
The substance, in plain English.
Practising medicine is trade or commerce. The leading guidance from AHPRA and the Hall Payne summary of practitioner advertising obligations confirms the position: a clinic, a sole-practitioner GP and a corporate group are all bound by Part 2-1 (s.18), Part 3-1 Division 1 (s.29) and Part 3-1 Division 2 (s.33–34) of the ACL whenever they advertise a service or charge a fee. The not-for-profit carve-out is narrow and rarely applies to private medical practice.
Section 18 is the broad anti-deception rule. Conduct is judged by its overall impression on a reasonable member of the relevant audience — what a non-medical patient takes from the headline, image, layout and small print together. Disclaimers in 6pt grey at the foot of a landing page rarely cure a misleading hero claim. The standard is objective; intent is irrelevant.
Section 29(1) lists specific false-or-misleading representations: para (b) standard, quality, value or grade of services; para (g) sponsorship, approval or affiliation. A clinic claiming "AHPRA-approved" or "hospital-grade" without basis falls under (g). Section 33 applies to goods, s.34 to services — both prohibit conduct that is liable to mislead the public as to the nature, characteristics or suitability of what is supplied.
On a single ad the ACCC and AHPRA jurisdictions overlap. AHPRA polices s.133 of the National Law (the health-specific advertising code); the ACCC polices the general consumer-protection regime. AHPRA's Advertising hub explicitly states that complaints may be referred to the TGA or ACCC where appropriate. Practices have been hit on both fronts for the same campaign — the regulators are not exclusive.
Practice ownership and structure must be transparent. Section 29(1)(g) and the wider ACL bar of misleading representations cover ownership disclosure: a corporate-owned clinic group presenting itself as an independent practitioner-owned practice is at risk, and the ACCC has used the same provisions against franchise networks and health-insurance products that obscured the real provider.
Maximum penalty: From 28 March 2026, up to $100 million for a body corporate per breach (or 3× the benefit obtained, or 30% of adjusted turnover during the breach period, whichever is greater); up to $2.5 million for an individual..
Recent enforcement under this provision:
- 2015
ACCC v Advanced Medical Institute Pty Ltd
Federal Court declared on 22 April 2015 that AMI, NRM Corporation and NRM Trading had engaged in unconscionable conduct and used unfair contract terms in promoting and supplying men's sexual-dysfunction treatments — the headline Australian medical-services ACL action of the past decade.
ACCC media release — Federal Court finds AMI engaged in unconscionable conduct
- 2018
ACCC v Advanced Medical Institute (contempt)
NRM Corporation and NRM Trading were fined $350,000 for contempt of court for breaching earlier ACCC orders, after broadcasting six radio ads and a TV ad making the same misleading representations between April and July 2015.
- 2016
Reckitt Benckiser (Nurofen Specific Pain) penalty appeal
The Full Federal Court increased the penalty against Reckitt Benckiser to $6 million for misleading representations on the Nurofen Specific Pain range — each product contained the same active ingredient at the same dose despite packaging implying targeted relief; the leading recent precedent on health-product s.18 / s.33 conduct.
ACCC media release — Full Federal Court orders $6 million penalty for Nurofen Specific Pain
- 2014
ACCC v Sensaslim Australia Pty Ltd
Federal Court ordered $3.55 million in penalties for misleading representations and false claims about the Sensaslim weight-loss spray and its business-opportunity offering — the ACCC's reference case on consumer-facing weight-loss product misleading conduct under s.18 and s.29.
ACCC media release — ACCC takes court action against Sensaslim
A worked example.
A Melbourne medical group operating five clinics under a single brand runs a paid-search campaign with the headline "Australia's leading men's health clinic — over 50,000 patients treated". The landing page describes the practitioner as a "specialist in men's hormonal medicine" with no specialist registration in endocrinology. The terms of service describe a 12-month no-refund subscription, with the consultation framed as free. Four ACL exposures stack: s.18 (overall impression of leading authority and outcomes), s.29(1)(b) (representation about quality of service), s.29(1)(g) (sponsorship/approval — "specialist" without specialist registration), and s.34 (nature of the service — the free consultation is gating a long-term contract). AHPRA can act on the same facts under s.133. The fix is rewriting the headline around a specific, verifiable service, removing the unregistered "specialist" descriptor, and putting the contract terms above the fold.
The questions that come next.
If AHPRA polices medical advertising, why does the ACCC still get involved?
AHPRA polices the health-specific National Law (s.133); the ACCC polices the general Australian Consumer Law. They are layered, not alternatives. AHPRA's Advertising hub explicitly states that matters may be referred to the ACCC or TGA. A single ad can breach both — and the penalties are separate.
Does "in trade or commerce" really cover a sole-practitioner GP?
Yes. Trade or commerce includes professional services, regardless of practice size or corporate structure. The Hall Payne practitioner-advertising guidance and the AHPRA Advertising and the law page both treat sole-practitioner advertising as ACL-bound. The not-for-profit carve-out rarely applies in private medical practice.
Can a clinic call itself a "specialist" practice?
Only if a registered medical practitioner with specialist registration is in fact providing the relevant service. AHPRA's guidelines and the ACCC s.29(1)(g) sponsorship/approval limb both bear on this. "Substantial experience in" is the safer phrasing where specialist registration is not held.
How are penalties calculated under the ACL?
From 28 March 2026 the maximum body-corporate penalty per breach is the greater of $100 million, three times the benefit obtained, or 30% of adjusted turnover during the breach period; the individual maximum is $2.5 million. Each separate misleading ad is a separate breach.
Do disclaimers in small print fix a misleading hero claim?
Generally not. Section 18 is judged on overall impression on a reasonable audience member. The Reckitt Benckiser / Nurofen Specific Pain decision is the leading authority on small-print disclaimers being inadequate to cure a misleading dominant message.
Read it for yourself.
Brief us with the regulator already in line one.