Cash ban for online health spruikers

The medical regulator has targeted the practice of influencers being paid or receiving benefits to spruik health products.

Influencer Emma Mugica. Picture: John Feder

The medical regulator has cracked down on the practice of influencers being paid or receiving benefits to spruik health products, banning the practice among a raft of changes to advertising guidelines.

The new Therapeutic Goods Administration advertising code allows influencers to give testimonials for products, but only if they receive nothing in return, which would mean most of them wouldn’t bother.

The advertising code applies to all medicines, medical devices, vitamins and supplements, and general health products.

Under the rules, anyone that receives “valuable consideration” for their testimonial are taken to be persons who are involved with the production, sale, supply or marketing of the goods, hence falling under the rules. Whether a payment is disclosed or a ­testimonial is genuine makes no difference.

The code also prohibits ­endorsements by those who hold themselves out as having expertise or qualifications in a health-related field, which includes current and former health practitioners and medical researchers.

The rules also disallow advertising that plays on fear and ­apprehension or is likely to cause fear, undue alarm or distress. This includes advertisements that suggest a particular condition will lead to pain or a serious ailment, reinforcing the need for a particular product.

For 27-year-old influencer Emma Mugica, the decision will cripple her earnings. With 71,000 followers on Instagram, Mugica says a majority of her income is supported by paid partnerships with skincare, wellness, vitamin and protein brands.

According to Mugica, the decision will not only impact content creators, but hit wellness and healthcare businesses.

“It’s a big hit on businesses,” she said. “Influencer marketing is the No 1 strategy for most companies. By pulling that away from them, not only are the influencers losing out on their job, but the companies are also losing out on a lot of business.”

The updated code also ­streamlines the mandatory statements requirements, introducing additional statements that will apply to analgesics, sunscreens and therapeutic goods for use in weight management. The new code replaces one that industry representatives had complained was difficult to understand.

Suzy Madar, a partner at the law firm King Wood and Mallesons, who is assisting health companies comply with the new code, said the changes would catch many by surprise.

“If somebody wants to, without any incentive or cash payment or giveaways, say something about a product, and their use of a product, that’s still fine,” Ms Madar said. “But as soon as there’s any sort of consideration paid then that’s certainly going to fall foul of the new rules.

“And the threshold for what constitutes an incentive is also very, very low. So that includes payments that are made to influencers, who will be considered to be involved in advertising of the goods. But it also applies to someone who might write a blog about a particular therapeutic good, and then subsequently is provided a free sample for the blog to be used in advertising of the good.

“The classic one is a little tube of suncream that might be provided to someone who’s written a blog about different suncreams – that now would now would fall foul of the new rules.

“Essentially, the TGA is concerned about consumers being exposed to advertising that doesn’t enable them to make an informed decision about the therapeutic goods that were ­appropriate for them to purchase because the TGA considers the testimonial may be motivated by payment or an interest.”