What does AHPRA s.133 require of telehealth platforms when prescribers feature in marketing?
Section 133 of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law applies to every advertising surface that promotes a regulated health service, including the telehealth platform's website, prescriber profile pages, paid social, SEO and any patient-facing content where a registered practitioner is named or implied. Testimonials about clinical care are categorically prohibited and the prescriber is personally liable alongside the corporate platform. AHPRA's Telehealth Guidelines (in force 1 September 2023, updated October 2025) layer specific obligations about asynchronous, questionnaire-only and "online doctor" models on top of the s.133 advertising rules.
Reviewed 2026-05-03Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Queensland) Schedule, s.133.
A person must not advertise a regulated health service, or a business that provides a regulated health service, in a way that — (a) is false, misleading or deceptive … (c) uses testimonials or purported testimonials about the service or business … (d) creates an unreasonable expectation of beneficial treatment.
Source: Health Practitioner Regulation National Law — Schedule
The substance, in plain English.
Every prescriber surface on a telehealth platform is in scope. The named-doctor profile page, the credentialing block on the homepage, the bylined article, the founder-doctor video, the LinkedIn post amplified by paid spend, the influencer post tagging the platform's medical director — each is advertising of a regulated health service for s.133 purposes. The provision binds the practitioner directly and the operating entity in parallel; corporate liability does not transfer the personal exposure.
Testimonials about clinical care are prohibited regardless of where they sit on the platform. Patient quotes that comment on outcome, recommendation or quality of clinical care fall on the wrong side of s.133(1)(c), even if surfaced through Google review syndication, Trustpilot widgets, in-app star ratings or user-generated social content the platform amplifies. AHPRA's published Testimonial Tool draws the line — non-clinical reviews (booking experience, app usability, parcel delivery, customer service) are permitted; clinical reviews ("this medicine worked for me", "the doctor diagnosed me correctly") are not. Selective curation that surfaces only positive non-clinical reviews can still imply clinical endorsement and engage the section.
AHPRA's Telehealth Guidelines treat asynchronous questionnaire-only prescribing as poor practice. Marketing copy that promises "prescription in minutes", "no consult required", "complete the form and we'll send treatment" engages both s.133(1)(d) (unreasonable expectation of beneficial treatment) and the underlying practice standard the guidelines set. The Medical Board has signalled enforcement attention to platforms that market the speed of the consult over the appropriateness of the care.
Prescriber bylines and founder-doctor content require the same scrutiny as any other advertising. A founder-doctor video describing condition outcomes, a bylined article that recommends the platform's pathway over alternatives, a podcast appearance that positions the platform as the answer to the condition the prescriber treats — each is the prescriber's personal s.133 exposure and the platform's corporate exposure. Disclaimers do not cure the breach if the substance of the content recommends the service in clinical terms.
Compliance posture is built into the brief. AHPRA published its Compliance and Enforcement Strategy in 2024, prioritising website and social-media advertising over print, and recorded 775 advertising complaints assessed in 2024–25 with 356 treated as criminal offences for prosecution. Telehealth platforms that anonymise patient stories, run non-clinical operational reviews, brief prescribers to non-recommendation framing and remove asynchronous "prescribe in minutes" copy sit on the durable side.
Maximum penalty: $60,000 per offence for an individual practitioner; $120,000 per offence for a body corporate. Each non-compliant advertisement is a separate offence. Penalties as amended in 2022 and applied in all jurisdictions including Western Australia from July 2024..
Recent enforcement under this provision:
- 2025
AHPRA Telehealth Guidelines — 1 September 2023, updated October 2025
Medical Board Telehealth Guidelines come into force 1 September 2023 and updated October 2025. Treat asynchronous questionnaire-only prescribing as poor practice and require real-time direct consultation before prescribing as a matter of best practice.
AHPRA — Patient safety paramount in updated telehealth guidance (Oct 2025)
- 2025
AHPRA 2024–25 advertising compliance report
AHPRA assessed 775 advertising complaints in 2024–25, 356 treated as criminal offences for prosecution under s.133. The published compliance and enforcement strategy explicitly prioritises website and social-media advertising over print.
- 2024
AHPRA Cosmetic Surgery Enforcement Unit
Standing enforcement unit established with $4.5 million in funding had closed more than 200 notifications by April 2024 and 35+ practitioners were facing regulatory action with 315 active investigations underway across the cosmetic and broader medical sector — the model AHPRA is extending to telehealth-adjacent advertising surveillance.
AHPRA — Cosmetic surgery crackdown closes 200th notification
A worked example.
A women's telehealth platform runs a homepage hero with the medical director's photograph, the headline "Australia's most trusted online doctor for menopause care" and a five-star Trustpilot widget below pulling "Dr Smith changed my life — finally diagnosed correctly after years". The hero is on the wrong side of s.133(1)(d) ("most trusted" creates unreasonable expectation), the Trustpilot widget on the wrong side of s.133(1)(c) (clinical-care testimonial), and the medical director is personally exposed alongside the operating company. The fix: replace the hero claim with a specific service description and Medical Board registration line, replace the Trustpilot widget with non-clinical operational reviews framed as such, and run prescriber bylines through the same review pipeline as paid creative. The conversion of the page does not move materially; the AHPRA exposure goes to zero.
The questions that come next.
Can we publish patient stories if we anonymise them and the patient consents?
Anonymity and consent do not cure the testimonial restriction in s.133(1)(c). The line is whether the published statement comments on the clinical aspects of the regulated health service — symptoms, diagnosis, treatment, outcome. An anonymised patient story that says the platform diagnosed and treated their condition is still a clinical-care testimonial. Patient stories framed around non-clinical aspects (booking experience, accessibility, app usability) are permitted.
Does the prescriber's personal social account fall under s.133?
Yes if it advertises a regulated health service. A registered practitioner's personal account that names the platform, recommends pathways or comments on patient outcomes is advertising regardless of whose account it is. The practitioner is personally liable. Professional content for a peer audience (CPD, conference recap) is treated differently — the test is whether a reasonable patient would read the content as advertising the service.
Are five-star Google review widgets safe if we filter for non-clinical reviews?
Mechanical filtering is brittle. Selective curation that surfaces only positive reviews — even non-clinical ones — can imply clinical endorsement and engage s.133. The safer pattern is non-clinical reviews framed as such (e.g. "What patients say about booking and onboarding") rather than a generic "What patients say" widget that hides the curation logic.
How does s.133 interact with TGA s.42DLB on the same page?
Both apply concurrently. A landing page that names the prescriber, recommends a pathway and references a Schedule 4 medicine engages s.42DLB (substance reference, public-facing) and s.133 (testimonial / unreasonable expectation, regulated health service). Notices can issue from both regulators on the same creative. Most enforcement against telehealth in 2024–26 has run primarily through the TGA on substance references; the AHPRA exposure is the parallel risk on the prescriber-side.
Do AHPRA's Telehealth Guidelines change what we can advertise?
Yes — indirectly. The guidelines treat asynchronous questionnaire-only prescribing as poor practice. Marketing copy that promotes that model ("no consult required", "prescription in minutes") becomes both an advertising compliance issue under s.133(1)(d) and a practice-standard issue. Real-time consultation language ("speak to an Australian-registered doctor") aligns the marketing with the guidelines.
Read it for yourself.
Brief us with the regulator already in line one.