Not a warning letter. A criminal offence, carrying up to $60,000 for a practitioner and $120,000 for a company — per breach. A website with four bad testimonials is not one breach.
Most agencies find this out when a complaint arrives. We check every word before it goes live, against the rules themselves rather than a summary of them.
Take away testimonials, guarantees and superlatives, and what is left is your doctor explaining honestly what they do, who they treat, and who they turn away.
That happens to be the most persuasive thing you own. It is also the only kind of content an AI system will quote, because it contains a checkable claim rather than an opinion.
So Australian practices are being pushed by a regulator into doing the right work several years before everyone else gets round to it. That is not a handicap. On a long enough view it is a head start.
Not every good review is a prohibited testimonial. If it only mentions the reception, the waiting time or how well things were explained — and says nothing about a symptom, a treatment or an outcome — it is not caught by the rule. Most practices have been advised otherwise.
We read every page, every social post and twelve months of comments, and send you a list of what needs to change, ranked by how much trouble it could cause.