What are the advertising rules for osteopaths in Australia?
CompliGUARD reviews this compliance area against TGA · AHPRA · FSANZ · ACCC frameworks for Australian health brands — here's what the regulations say.
CompliGUARD reviews osteopath advertising against AHPRA's advertising rules under the National Law. Osteopaths are registered with AHPRA under the Osteopathy Board of Australia and must comply with all four advertising prohibitions under s.133 of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law — including the ban on patient testimonials, unrealistic outcome claims, unsubstantiated superiority claims, and inducements to seek unnecessary treatment.
The rule: Health Practitioner Regulation National Law, s.133; AHPRA Guidelines for Advertising a Regulated Health Service, December 2020
Osteopathy is one of 15 professions regulated by AHPRA under the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law. All osteopath advertising — including websites, social media, directories, and any other promotional channel — is subject to s.133 and the AHPRA Guidelines for Advertising a Regulated Health Service. The Osteopathy Board of Australia has published additional advertising guidance that supplements the AHPRA Guidelines, with particular emphasis on claims related to musculoskeletal conditions, infant osteopathy, and visceral osteopathy — areas where advertising claims have historically attracted complaint and investigation.
What this means in practice
- Do not publish patient testimonials in any form — including written reviews, video testimonials, case studies, or reposted Google reviews.
- Do not make claims that osteopathic treatment will achieve a specific outcome — back pain relief, posture correction, infant colic resolution — framed as guarantees or typical results.
- Avoid claims that osteopathy is more effective than other modalities for specific conditions — these are unsubstantiated superiority claims under s.133(1)(d).
- Be particularly cautious with claims relating to infant osteopathy and visceral osteopathy — these areas have attracted specific regulatory attention and complaint volume.
- Retain a pre-publication compliance record for all advertising content — AHPRA's automated monitoring tools actively scan osteopath websites and social media.
Common mistakes
Making specific claims about infant colic, reflux, or feeding difficulties
Claims that osteopathic treatment can resolve infant colic, reflux, or feeding difficulties are high-risk — these are outcome claims that imply a specific therapeutic result and have been specifically highlighted in Osteopathy Board advertising guidance as requiring careful substantiation.
Describe the osteopathic assessment and treatment approach for infants without implying specific outcomes. Educational content about what an infant osteopathy appointment involves is permissible — outcome promises are not.
Using 'whole body' or 'visceral' treatment claims without substantiation
Claims that osteopathy treats systemic or visceral conditions — digestive function, respiratory conditions, hormonal balance — are therapeutic claims requiring evidence. Where the evidence base is contested or limited, these claims create unrealistic expectation and superiority risks under s.133.
Restrict claims to musculoskeletal applications where the evidence base is clearest. Where broader claims are made, retain the specific clinical evidence that supports them.
Reposting directory or booking platform reviews
Reviews on platforms like Halaxy, Cliniko directories, or Google that a practitioner reposts or links to in advertising constitute testimonials — the prohibition applies regardless of the platform the review appeared on originally.
Do not repost or draw attention to patient reviews on any platform in your advertising materials.
Compliant vs non-compliant example
❌ NON-COMPLIANT
Making specific claims about infant colic, reflux, or feeding difficulties
✅ COMPLIANT
Describe the osteopathic assessment and treatment approach for infants without implying specific outcomes. Educational content about what an infant osteopathy appointment involves is permissible — outcome promises are not.
The enforcement context
Osteopathy is among the professions with consistent complaint volume in AHPRA's advertising enforcement data. In 2024–25, AHPRA assessed 775 advertising complaints across all registered professions, with musculoskeletal practitioners including osteopaths represented in the complaint data. The Osteopathy Board of Australia has published specific advertising guidance that practitioners are expected to follow.
Before you publish, check it.
CompliGUARD reviews osteopath advertising against AHPRA Guidelines s.133 — including outcome claim analysis, testimonial detection, and superiority claim flagging.
Start free reviewRelated questions
Regulatory references
- Health Practitioner Regulation National Law, s.133
- AHPRA Guidelines for Advertising a Regulated Health Service, December 2020
- Osteopathy Board of Australia — Advertising Guidance