100 websites: tens of thousands of alleged breaches of cosmetic advertising laws
The drug regulator is cracking down on cosmetic advertising rules, but a new report has identified tens of thousands of breaches from only 100 websites.
Analysis of 100 non-surgical cosmetics websites has found a stunning 98 per cent to be in apparent breach of strict national advertising rules, with almost every site using words such as dermal filler, or wrinkle-reducing injections, which are expressly banned for prescription-only medicine.
Consumer advocacy group Operation Redress has conducted the audit of advertising compliance in the non-surgical cosmetics industry. It did so by analysing the websites of 100 cosmetics businesses, representing every state and territory, during the months of March and April. Across those websites, Operation Redress says 530 clinic sites were listed.
The researchers searched 34 terms prohibited by the Therapeutic Goods Administration, the nation’s drug regulator.
“The fact that we had 98 per of websites that were very obviously non-compliant to the TGA rules was alarming,” said Maddison Johnstone, a spokeswoman for Operation Redress.
“At the start of this research it was actually showing 100 per cent non-compliance. So we were hoping that we would find one or two websites that were compliant, because it sounded made-up.”
The report found the term “dermal filler” was used 31,874 times, though more than 50 per cent of those mentions were across just five websites. Other findings included the use of the term “cosmetic inject” 16,671 times, “Botox” 2983 times, and slang terms such as “Brotox”, “Haytox”, “Scrotox” and “Traptox” used 435 times.
“This is just on websites alone. So the true nature of breaches in digital advertising is likely to be much higher again,” Ms Johnstone said.
“I think when this report is showing that there’s close to 100 per cent non-compliance, definitely more needs to be done.”
In Australia it is illegal to advertise almost all prescription-only medication direct to the public. That includes Schedule 4 medications, which comprise those used for dermal filler and anti-wrinkle treatments, the most popular types of restricted medications used in cosmetic injectables.
The TGA tightened its advertising rules about a year ago in an effort to create a more uniform approach for all medications used in the so-called wellness industries.
“To resolve any inconsistency in interpretation across industry areas, the TGA no longer permits references to terms such as ‘wrinkle-reducing injections’ where those terms would result in a reasonable consumer understanding the intention of the content is to promote the use or supply of a prescription medicine,” the TGA said at the time.
The Operation Redress report, while looking at only a sample of businesses, suggests few may be adhering to the rules.
“I’m shocked by the numbers,” said Michael Fraser, also from Operation Redress. “I knew it would be massive, but I didn’t know it’d be that big. The numbers just sound stupid, don’t they?”
Under TGA rules, advertisers cannot draw consumers to their health service on the basis they offer prescription-only cosmetic injections.
“This applies whether it is a direct reference to a product, such as Botox, or an indirect reference to a product such as ‘anti-wrinkle injections’, which may be taken by a consumer as a reference to a specific prescription-only medicine or substance,” a spokeswoman for the Department of Health, Disability and Ageing said.
Under the rules, it should be next to impossible for a customer to search a clinic’s website for those terms.
The TGA has an extensive list of “advertising compliance investigations outcomes”. While the majority are for businesses breaching guidelines for the selling of products such as GLP1 and medicinal cannabis, cosmetic clinics are also included.
One involved a clinic that had been sent two warning letters for non-compliance with “cosmetic injectables in advertising”.
The case was closed last year, with the outcome listed as having the “alleged unlawful advertising amended by the advertiser”.
However, a quick scan of the website in question suggested mass non-compliance today. It’s possible to search for terms such as “filler” and “eye wrinkle injections”. There are also photos of faces being injected.
“Muscle-relaxing wrinkle injections are one of the most common injectable treatments,” the site states. “These injectables can be used on many areas of the face, including eye wrinkles, frown lines, forehead lines and for brow-lifting and also face-slimming.”
The website also includes a reference to the TGA legislation.
“Unfortunately, due to Australian regulations, we are not allowed to name the drugs used.”
On just one page of the company’s website, a quick scan shows the term “wrinkle injection” is used at least 15 times. That does not include the entire site or metadata – and is from just one of its many pages.
A further review shows what appear to be hundreds of blatant mentions of restricted terms. That does not include terms used in the metadata.
Mr Fraser said it was common for websites to contain numerous breaches.
“Sixty-seven per cent had 10 pages or more that had potentially non-compliant language in there, so that showed it wasn’t just a ‘whoops, I added it on one or two pages’ – it was quite substantial,” he said.
The report also raises concerns about the use of artificial intelligence tools to “predict” how a patient would look with certain treatments, suggesting some of those tools can lead to unrealistic expectations.
“AI is also used to glamorise cosmetic injectables,” the report states.
It states that cosmetic injectables are advertised as safe on 59 per cent of websites analysed, which the TGA rules also prohibit.
The TGA has welcomed the report and says it is concerned about the health and safety of patients. In recent months, the regulator has sent about 100 “guidance letters” to people it believes have breached its rules. It plans to send more letters in the coming weeks.
When previously asked about its approach, which some criticise as being too lenient, the TGA has stated it is hopeful that, by providing education, the industry will comply without the need for heavy-handed tactics.
“These letters are part of the TGA’s broader strategy to promote voluntary compliance by providing clear, accessible guidance,” the spokeswoman said.
How long that stance will remain, especially as a result of this latest report, is unknown.
Operation Redress has additionally flagged 40 other advertising tools commonly used by the non-surgical cosmetics industry that it believes need greater monitoring. The report did not try to analyse other platforms.
“This is just on websites alone,” Mr Fraser said. “The true nature of breaches in digital advertising is likely to be much higher again.”
The TGA says it works closely with several online platforms, including social media, to remove posts that breach the law.
“In the 2024-25 financial year to April 30, 2025, the number of requests for removal is over 13,000,” a department spokeswoman said. “This included over 2500 advertisements relating to cosmetic injectable products.”
Sheri-lee Knoop is a registered nurse and president of the Cosmetic Nurses Association. While not speaking specifically about this report, she agreed non-compliance with advertising rules was a concern and she wished more injectors would abide by them.
Ms Knoop said that, while the rules were sometimes tough, Australia was lucky to have regulators that care about safeguarding patients and best practice, saying many other countries would benefit from a similar approach.
She thought part of the reason for the non-compliance was a lack of ramifications for those who flouted the rules.
“There’s no follow-up, there’s no enforcement,” she said. “If you don’t enforce the law, then the law is kind of questionable in terms of, ‘why are we all complying when there’s a whole lot of people that are not complying?’, and then they are not being taken to task.”
However, she has empathy for newer businesses that are trying to make a name for themselves and believes the tighter rules do make it more difficult for them to establish themselves from scratch.
“Without marketing, without being able to differentiate yourself, how do you survive? How can you actually pay your bills, grow a business?” Ms Knoop said.
She also worries that the rules in their current form make it too difficult for patients to be able to access credible information that can help provide them with informed consent.
“Now that we’re not allowed to say anything at all about the treatments that we perform, we’re in a situation where we are not able to provide any education whatsoever for patients, and that means anybody who is looking for treatments,” she said.
“How do they inform themselves about the options and about the particular practitioner they may decide to choose in terms of how that practitioner may operate and what that practitioner even offers?”
The TGA hopes practitioners will step into the void and provide informative consultations with patients.
“Prescription-only medicines carry higher risks, and a health practitioner-led consultation will consider their individual needs, medications and general health, and whether the provision of a prescription, such as cosmetic injectables, is appropriate,” a department spokeswoman said.
“Further, a consultation enables the health practitioner authorising the administration of the injection to fulfil their obligation to fully explain the procedure and risks before the treatment goes ahead.”
Operation Redress is also reluctant to see amendments to the legislation, saying social media is already filled with posts made for entertainment value rather than education, and it worries changes could lead to more of them.
Ms Johnstone said the group was inspired to compile the report to confirm its suspicions of non-compliance and highlight the need for stronger enforcement of the rules.
“There’s just systemic non-compliance across the industry, and we’ve been saying that for a few years now – observationally, anecdotally, and we’ve observed it ourselves,” she said.
“We do have some sympathy for the TGA because when you have basically an entire industry that’s breaking your rules, how do you even go about cleaning that up?”
To join the conversation, please log in. Don't have an account? Register
Join the conversation, you are commenting as Logout