Compliance

AHPRA-compliant Google Ads copy for psychology clinics

How to convert without putting your registration at risk.

By Pete Flynn · 3 May 2026 · 8 min read

Psychology marketing in Australia sits under Section 133 of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law, which prohibits testimonials and certain misleading claims for every AHPRA-regulated profession, not just psychology. What makes psychology different isn't a legally stricter standard. It's that the patient is often vulnerable, the therapeutic relationship is more sensitive than in most other professions, and a sloppy line of ad copy can both put off the patient and expose the practitioner to a complaint. Most generic agencies don't know the rules at all, which is how psychology clinics end up with campaigns that book some patients and quietly create regulatory risk at the same time. This article walks through the lines that matter, and what good ad copy looks like inside them.

Three things you cannot do

First: no testimonials about clinical aspects of the service. Section 133 of the National Law prohibits testimonials in advertising for any regulated health service, with AHPRA defining a testimonial as a recommendation or positive statement about the clinical aspects of the service. 'I felt so much better after my sessions' crosses that line because it's commenting on a clinical outcome. 'The reception team was friendly and the clinic was easy to find' does not, because it's about customer service. The carve-out is narrower than most clinics realise, and the maximum penalty for getting it wrong was lifted in 2022 to $60,000 for an individual.

Second: no claims of guaranteed outcomes. Phrases like 'overcome anxiety,' 'eliminate depression,' or 'cure trauma' all imply specific therapeutic outcomes that AHPRA treats as misleading. Any ad copy that promises a result is a risk.

Third: no comparative claims. 'Best psychologist in [suburb]' or 'highest-rated trauma therapist' both fall foul of the Board's guidance on superlatives. Even if technically true based on Google reviews, the regulation treats these as unacceptable.

If your ad copy makes a promise about an outcome, names a testimonial, or uses a superlative, you're outside the lines, regardless of whether the patient sees it that way.

What you can do

Describe what the practice does. 'Psychology services for adults and children in [suburb]' is unambiguous and safe. The patient knows what's offered.

Describe the funding pathways. 'Medicare-rebated sessions with a Mental Health Care Plan' is factual and useful. It also pre-qualifies the patient.

Describe the clinician's training and approach in plain terms. 'CBT and ACT-trained psychologists' or 'Clinicians with experience in trauma-focused therapy' both name the work without promising the outcome.

Describe the booking pathway. 'Same-week appointments available' or 'Evening sessions for working professionals' speak directly to logistical concerns without making a clinical claim.

How to handle the patient's pain without crossing the line

The rules don't prevent you from acknowledging that the patient is struggling. They prevent you from claiming you'll fix it. There's a meaningful gap between those two things.

Compare these two ads, both targeting an anxiety-led search:

Non-compliant: 'Overcome anxiety with our award-winning psychologists. 95 percent success rate.' This makes an outcome claim, names a superlative, and implies a measurable success rate that would need substantial evidence to back up.

Compliant: 'Talk to a psychologist who works with anxiety, weekly availability, Mental Health Care Plan rebates accepted.' This describes the service, names the funding pathway, and respects the patient.

The compliant version converts at least as well, often better. The patient feels respected, not pressured.

What to do when the agency wants to push the line

Most agencies that haven't worked specifically in healthcare will push for ad copy that includes outcome promises and testimonials. They aren't doing it maliciously. They're applying the playbook that works for non-regulated industries. Every word of that playbook is a potential complaint to AHPRA.

The clinics that win the long game in psychology marketing are the ones whose ad copy does the harder work of describing the service well, in respectful, accurate, plain English. The conversion rate is healthy. The clinician's registration is safe. The brand is the kind of brand other psychologists recommend their colleagues to.

Common questions

The questions that come up most often.

Can I use Google reviews on my ads or landing page?

The reviews on Google's own platform are fine to exist. AHPRA explicitly says Google reviews are not within your control and you don't have to remove or moderate them. The line you cannot cross is republishing or quoting clinical-content reviews on your own ads, website, or marketing materials. The moment you embed or quote a review that talks about clinical aspects (the therapy itself, the outcomes, the treatment), it becomes a testimonial in advertising and falls under Section 133. Reviews that comment only on customer service, communication style, or the clinic environment are not testimonials and can be used. The boundary is what the review is talking about, not where it was originally posted.

What about replying to a Google review? Can I do that?

Yes, with care. AHPRA's position is that the review itself sits outside your control, but your reply is your advertising. If you respond with anything that confirms a clinical relationship, references the patient's clinical aspects, or even thanks them for sharing a clinical outcome, your reply can itself be classed as a testimonial. The safest reply pattern is one that thanks the reviewer for their feedback in non-clinical language, without confirming or denying that the person is a patient. Many clinics get this wrong and create regulatory risk for themselves through a well-meaning thank-you message.

What about my colleagues' Google reviews? Can the agency use those?

Reviews from professional peers (other psychologists, GPs, social workers, allied health colleagues) generally aren't classed as patient testimonials and can be used in ad copy and on websites. The line is whether the reviewer is in a current or former clinical relationship with the practitioner. If they are, it's a patient testimonial and it's restricted.

Is there any way to show outcomes safely?

Aggregate, de-identified, evidence-based statements are safer than individual outcome claims. 'Australian research shows CBT is effective for the majority of patients with generalised anxiety' is a citable claim, properly sourced. 'I helped Sarah overcome her anxiety in eight sessions' is not. The shape that's safest is to describe what the evidence base says about the modality, not what your specific clinic has delivered for specific patients.