Reviewing Agency Copy in Healthcare: 20 of 45 Say Compliant

Reviewing agency copy is a healthcare clinic's job, because the legal risk stays with the clinic. On 28 September 2026 I read 45 Australian healthcare marketing agency websites. 20 said their work is compliant. Only 3 of those 20 said the practitioner carries the responsibility. So when a draft lands in your inbox, the sign-off is yours. This post is the checklist for that moment.

What did 45 healthcare marketing agency websites say?

A lot of confidence, and very little about who checks.

I read the websites of 45 agencies that sell marketing, SEO, ads, websites or content to Australian health practices. That was 187 pages and 176,829 words. I looked for what each one says about the rules, and what it says about your part in the process.

20 of the 45 sites never named Ahpra at all on the pages I read. That is fine for a web designer who only builds the site. It matters more when the same agency writes the words.

The gap that matters for you is at the bottom of the chart. 20 agencies say their work is compliant. Only 3 of those 20 tell you that the legal risk stays with the practitioner. The other 17 leave that part out.

Who carries the risk when agency copy breaks the rules?

You do. The law and the regulator's guidance both say so.

Section 133 of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law starts with the words "A person must not advertise a regulated health service, or a business that provides a regulated health service, in a way that". Five limbs follow. The ban falls on whoever advertises the service.

Ahpra's advertising guidelines spell out who that is. You are the advertiser if you "direct someone to publish or draft content (including a third party, staff member or marketing agency)". Then comes the line every practice owner should read twice: "Advertisers are responsible for their advertising, so they need to check any content produced by others on their behalf."

Three agencies in the sample said this plainly. One wrote that "the liability for non-compliant advertising sits with the practitioner". That is honest, and it is rare.

Six agencies went the other way. Their copy suggests you can stop worrying. Some lines, word for word:

• "you won't need to review our work nervously before it goes live".
• "TGA compliant marketing so you never have to worry about getting in trouble for your promotional content".
• "We take care of compliance end-to-end".
• "No AHPRA or TGA breaches since inception".

These may be sincere. An agency can do careful work. But a promise from your agency does not move your legal duty. Section 133 applies to "a person", so an agency that writes a breach can carry risk too. That does not take yours away. I cover how that plays out in does your agency understand AHPRA?, which looks at your live site. This post is about the draft, before it goes live.

Why is an agency’s “compliant” badge not enough?

Because nobody checks the badge, and the pages behind it often do not show the knowledge.

No regulator approves an agency's work. Ahpra's guidelines say it directly: "Ahpra and the National Boards cannot give advertisers legal advice about their advertising and they cannot approve advertising." So "AHPRA compliant" on an agency site is a claim the agency makes about itself.

I looked at what sat behind that claim. Of the 20 agencies that called their work compliant, 12 did not explain a single advertising rule on the pages I read. There was no mention of the testimonial ban, outcome claims, specialist titles or before-and-after images. The other 8 did explain at least one rule, and some explained them well.

The testimonial rule is the clearest test. Section 133 bans advertising that "uses testimonials or purported testimonials about the service or business". Yet 7 agencies offered or recommended patient testimonials as content for your clinic, and none of the 7 mentioned the ban anywhere on the pages I read. 3 of those 7 also said their work is compliant. Some lines, word for word:

• "a video testimonial from a patient about navigating allergy diagnosis" (suggested as a blog topic for a clinic).
• "showcasing positive patient testimonials and success stories" (advice to dentists).
• "chiropractors can use patient testimonials in their content marketing as long as they have obtained the patient's consent and are compliant with HIPAA regulations".

HIPAA is a United States privacy law. It has nothing to say about Australian advertising. Consent does not fix a testimonial either. Ahpra's testimonial guidance defines testimonials as "recommendations or positive statements about the clinical aspects of a regulated health service used in advertising". My post on AHPRA and patient testimonials covers which reviews you can still show.

So treat the badge as a sales line. Your review of the draft is the real control.

What does the sign-off step look like at most agencies?

Mostly, it is a check on taste and timing.

13 of the 45 agencies described a step where the clinic sees, reviews or approves the work before it goes live. That is good. Some said it clearly:

• "You approve messaging, creatives, landing pages, and any patient-facing content before we publish".
• "Nothing happens without your approval".
• "All content will be sent to you prior to publishing for approval".

But 12 of those 13 framed your approval as a check on design, tone, feedback or revisions. Only 1 framed it as a compliance check. That agency wrote: "A registered practitioner from the practice reads and approves the clinical substance of anything published under the practice name." It added: "The approval is recorded with a date and the version approved."

That is the model to copy, whoever your agency is. Among the 20 agencies that said their work is compliant, 12 neither described your approval step nor said the risk is yours. If your agency is one of those, the step still exists. You just have to run it yourself.

Five agencies did describe their own compliance check as a named step. One said every campaign, website and piece of content "is checked against current AHPRA and TGA requirements before it goes live". An internal check is worth having. It adds to your sign-off. It cannot replace it, because the guidelines put the duty to check on you.

What should you check before you sign off on a draft?

Nine things, each tied to a rule. Read the draft once for each row.

Two things make this faster. First, read the draft as a patient would, start to finish. The ACCC's guidance notes that "It makes no difference whether a business intends to mislead or not." What counts is the impression the words leave. Second, highlight every line that makes a claim. Those are the lines that need a source or a rewrite.

Here is what a fix can look like. Each line on the right is written to be used as it stands, once the facts are true for your clinic.

This is the draft-stage version of a wider check. For the whole live site, use my AHPRA self-audit checklist. To keep it current each quarter, see the healthcare marketing review template.

What should the agency send with every draft?

A claim list, with a source for each claim.

Most of the work in a sign-off is finding the claims. A good agency can do that for you. Ask for three things with every draft:

• A list of every claim in the copy, one per line.
• The source for each claim, or a note that it came from you.
• A short note on any line the writer was unsure about.

This matters most when a product is involved. The TGA's Advertising Code says an advertisement about therapeutic goods must "only contain information that is substantiated by the advertiser prior to publication or dissemination". Your sign-off comes before publication, so that is the moment to hold the evidence. A claim list makes that easy.

Then keep a record. No rule sets a form for it. A simple note of the draft version, the date and who approved it will do. Only 1 agency in the sample described doing this, but any practice can.

The easiest fix is upstream. If the brief asks for sources at the start, the draft arrives with them. My post on the healthcare copywriting brief shows the field most brief templates leave out.

Can an agency promise results when your clinic cannot?

Yes, about marketing. That is why their voice can leak into your copy.

7 of the 45 agencies guaranteed a marketing result, such as more patients, more leads or rankings. Examples, word for word:

• "We guarantee results and if we don't deliver, you don't pay".
• "we guarantee patient growth numbers within defined timeframes".

An agency sells a business service. Its claims about itself are not health advertising under section 133, although consumer law still applies to them. Two of the 7 even warned clinics, on the same site, against writing "guaranteed results".

The same goes for superlatives. 18 of the 45 agencies called themselves #1, best or leading, as in "Australia's #1 Rated Healthcare Marketing Agency". An agency can take that risk for itself. Your clinic cannot. Watch for that sales voice in your draft. It is the most common way a promise or a "best" ends up on a clinic page.

How did I measure this, and what can it not tell you?

The method is short, and every page read was kept so it can be checked.

Method. 59 first-party agency websites found through neutral searches such as "healthcare marketing agency Sydney", "dental marketing agency Brisbane" and "allied health marketing agency Australia", on 28 September 2026. No compliance or claim words were used in the searches. Only Australian (.au) domains were kept. Directories, listicles, social media and NDIS-only agencies were left out. For each site I read the entry page and up to five linked pages chosen by the same keyword rule, such as about, process, FAQ and compliance pages. 45 sites could be read: 187 pages and 176,829 words. 14 could not, because they blocked or failed to load and had no usable 2026 archive copy. For three sites that blocked me, I read their 2026 Internet Archive copy instead. Scripts found candidate sentences, and every flag was then read by hand in context and recorded with a verbatim quote. No agency is named here.

Now the limits.

• This is 45 sites on one day. A site can change tomorrow.
• I read up to six pages per site. An agency may explain its process or the rules on a page I did not read, or in a contract.
• What an agency writes on its website may differ from how it works. Some agencies with no process page may run a careful review.
• A flag is my reading of the law and the regulators' guidance. It is not a finding by a regulator.
• Claims an agency makes about itself are not health advertising. I counted them to show the voice, not to allege a breach.
• This is general information about advertising rules. It is not legal advice about your practice.

If you want a second reader on a draft, or on the whole live site, that is what the All Clear Audit does. It quotes each flagged line, names the rule, and writes the replacement. Agencies can also hand me the words directly through white label healthcare copywriting. If you would rather talk first, book a call.

Prefer the short version? The findings are in an eight-slide web story.

Related reading:

• Does your agency understand AHPRA?
• Healthcare copywriting brief: the missing field
• AHPRA self-audit checklist
• Healthcare marketing review template
• AHPRA and patient testimonials
• Freelance copywriter vs health writing agency
• View all services →