The First Point of Care
- In short: The new Guidelines for advertising higher-risk non-surgical cosmetic procedures, commencing in September 2025, firmly frame cosmetic advertising within the sphere of professional practice.
- They apply long-standing National Law prohibitions to imagery, claims, testimonials and inducements used in higher-risk non-surgical cosmetic promotion.
- Advertising must also comply with parallel legal regimes, including the Therapeutic Goods Act, the Therapeutic Goods (Advertising) Code and the Australian Consumer Law.
- Accountability may extend to material produced by clinics or agencies, reflecting the influence advertising has before any clinical consultation occurs.
Cosmetic advertising rarely begins in the clinic. It usually starts online: a before-and-after image, a caption hinting at transformation, or a seasonal discount that creates urgency. These first impressions shape expectations well before a consultation. The Guidelines for advertising higher-risk non-surgical cosmetic procedures, published in June 2025 and commencing in September, were designed to address this early point of influence.
The 2022 Independent Review of Cosmetic Surgery found that advertising was not background noise but a driver of unsafe practice. Promotions glamourised invasive procedures, influencer endorsements blurred into social proof, and inducements encouraged fast decisions. The review concluded that advertising had overtaken the safeguards of clinical care, shaping choices long before any practitioner became involved. Audits confirmed widespread non-compliance with existing standards.
“Cosmetic promotion often trades on aspiration and identity; in that context, representation can itself cause harm.”
In response, the National Boards issued targeted guidance as part of the reform program that followed. The cosmetic advertising guidelines apply to a defined set of higher-risk non-surgical procedures. Their purpose is to explain how long-standing prohibitions operate in the cosmetic context and to show, through examples, how promotion can be aligned with accurate, culturally respectful communication.
The review concluded that advertising had overtaken the safeguards of clinical care, shaping decisions long before any consultation. Subsequent audits confirmed that non-compliance with existing standards was widespread.
In response, the National Boards issued targeted guidance as part of the broader reform program that followed the 2022 Review. The cosmetic advertising guidelines apply to a defined set of higher-risk non-surgical procedures. Their purpose is to inform practitioners and the community about expectations under the National Law, and to show how long-standing prohibitions operate in the cosmetic setting. By giving concrete examples of problematic practices, they aim to shift promotion into alignment with safe, culturally respectful, and accurate communication.
Since 2010, the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (as in force in each state and territory) has regulated advertising of health services. Section 133 is the centrepiece: no false, misleading or deceptive advertising; no unreasonable expectations; no testimonials; and no inducements without clear disclosure. Breach is an offence carrying penalties of up to $60,000 for individuals and $120,000 for corporations.
General advertising guidelines were issued in 2014 and revised in 2020. The 2025 cosmetic guidelines sit alongside them, issued under s 39 and admissible under s 41. They do not create new offences but clarify how the statutory prohibitions apply in cosmetic practice.
The cosmetic guidelines translate familiar prohibitions into the realities of cosmetic marketing, where imagery, urgency and social proof often dominate.
Before-and-after images are not banned, but they cannot create unreasonable expectations. Filters, lighting and framing can imply certainty of results, turning comparison into a promise. The guidelines highlight the need for balance so that decisions are made on realistic expectations, not illusion.
“Comparison becomes a promise when context is removed.”
Testimonials remain prohibited. Reposts, influencer endorsements and closed-group reviews all fall within s 133(1)(c). Personal stories may persuade, but they are partial and can undermine informed consent by exaggerating benefit and minimising risk.
Inducements attract similar caution. Time-limited specials or bundled offers are unlawful unless terms are fully and prominently disclosed. The aim is to prevent pressured medical decisions being driven by marketing tactics.
Even soft language — “safe”, “simple”, “risk-free” — can mislead. These phrases ignore well-recognised complications, from nerve injury to blindness. The guidelines require language that reflects reality, not reassurance that denies it.
A notable addition is the emphasis on cultural safety. Advertising must not stereotype, trivialise or exploit Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples. Cosmetic promotion often trades on aspiration and identity; in that context, representation can itself cause harm. Images, language and motifs require the same care as clinical practice.
Finally, responsibility cannot be outsourced. Practitioners are accountable for advertising of their services, whether created by themselves, a clinic or an agency. They must take reasonable steps to prevent unlawful content and correct it promptly when it appears. In this sense, advertising governance is part of professional practice, not an administrative afterthought.
In practice, advertising carries two dimensions of risk under the National Law: exposure to offence provisions and scrutiny of professional standards. Breaches of s 133 can attract criminal penalties and may also lead to disciplinary action. Under s 5, a contravention may constitute unprofessional conduct, and more serious or repeated breaches can amount to professional misconduct. Because the 2025 cosmetic guidelines are issued under s 39 and admissible under s 41, they help define the benchmark against which conduct is assessed. Departing from them without justification may result in cautions, conditions, suspension or cancellation of registration.
The cosmetic guidelines operate within a wider legal frame. The Therapeutic Goods Act 1989 (Cth) prohibits advertising prescription-only medicines such as botulinum toxin and dermal fillers. The Therapeutic Goods (Advertising) Code adds requirements for accuracy, safe presentation and a ban on testimonials. The Australian Consumer Law applies to all advertising and prohibits misleading or deceptive conduct, false representations and unconscionability.
These regimes overlap. A post consistent with AHPRA guidance may still breach the TGA if it names a Schedule 4 product. A clinic offering both injectables and dental whitening must comply with dental, cosmetic and consumer standards simultaneously. The safest approach is to assume the most specific rule applies while ensuring nothing contradicts the broader obligations.
These reforms reflect more than technical change. They mark a shift in how cosmetic advertising is understood: from marketing culture to professional accountability. Promotion is now treated with the same seriousness as clinical work. Trust begins at first glance, and the law makes that first glance part of professional conduct.