Skip to content

Compliance

The rules your ads live under. And how we run them.

A banned ad account ends a clinic’s acquisition overnight. UK aesthetics advertising answers to three regulators at once. Compliance is not a constraint on the work. It is what keeps the work running.

The environment

Three regulators, one ad.

Every asset must clear all three before launch.

  1. Platform policy

    Meta advertising policy

    Governs what may appear in the ad itself.

    Key focus

    Ad content, targeting, format

  2. Advertising code

    ASA and CAP

    Requires every claim substantiated and every testimonial real.

    Key focus

    Claims, evidence, testimonials

  3. Medicines law

    MHRA

    Prescription-only medicines cannot be advertised to the public.

    Key focus

    POM restrictions, medical claims

What each regulator actually polices

Meta advertising policy. Its personal-attributes rule prohibits implying knowledge of someone’s body or condition, and in our experience it is the rejection reason aesthetic clinics run into most. Repeated violations escalate from rejected ads to a suspended account.

ASA and CAP. The UK advertising regulator and its code. Every claim substantiated, every testimonial real and attributed, every urgency claim true. In our experience, body contouring is the category most likely to attract rejection.

MHRA. Advertising a prescription-only medicine to the public is a regulatory matter, not a style preference. The brand names most clinics reach for first in an ad are the ones the law does not allow there.

One failure fails the asset.

The gate

Watch a creative go through it.

Every asset the system produces, from ad copy to patient SMS, passes thirty-three checks across ten groups before any spend begins.

The full inventory: ten groups, and what each catches
GroupChecksWhat it catches
Personal attributes×3Copy addressing the reader’s body, assumed characteristics, insecurity hooks
Guaranteed results×3Absolute outcomes, missing "results vary", timeline guarantees
Before and after×5Any before and after for a prescription-only medicine or a body treatment; any other without written approval, patient consent and genuine, matched, typical photos; dramatic transformation claims
Health and medical claims×4Implied diagnosis, treat/cure/heal language, fear framing
Prescription-only medicines×6Brand names and near-names, phrases that can only mean the medicine, promoting the treatment instead of the consultation, a prescriber not identified
Urgency and scarcity×2Anything limited that is not verifiably limited
Call to action×2Treatment-purchase CTAs, pressure language
Accuracy and substantiation×4Unverifiable credentials, unattributed statistics, bait and switch, invented reviews
Pricing×3Any price near a prescription-only medicine; any other price without approval, or that is not the real current price, or that is sold with a deadline
Age targeting×1Any audience that includes under-18s

A worked example

The gate on a real claim.

The same check every asset gets.

Claim
"Book your BOTOX® appointment"
Risk
Advertises a prescription-only medicine to the public. Rejection, and regulatory exposure for the clinic, not the marketer.
Rule
MHRA restrictions on POM advertising; gate group 5.
Treatment
"Book your anti-wrinkle consultation"
Verdict
REQUIRES REWRITEAPPROVED TO PROCEED
Three more examples, and the line per treatment area
Claim
"Tired of looking tired?"
Risk
An insecurity hook that implies knowledge of the reader’s appearance. In our experience, the rejection category aesthetic clinics run into most.
Rule
Meta personal-attributes policy; gate group 1.
Treatment
"Explore treatments designed to help you feel refreshed and confident"
Verdict
REQUIRES REWRITEAPPROVED TO PROCEED
Claim
"Eliminate wrinkles permanently"
Risk
A guaranteed outcome. Individual variation in aesthetics makes any guarantee unsubstantiable in principle.
Rule
ASA/CAP substantiation requirements; gate group 2.
Treatment
"Anti-wrinkle treatments can deliver natural-looking, refreshed results. Individual results vary"
Verdict
REQUIRES REWRITEAPPROVED TO PROCEED
Claim
"Only 2 spots left!"
Risk
Fabricated scarcity. An ASA breach, and once noticed it destroys trust with exactly the cautious buyer this sector attracts.
Rule
ASA/CAP; Meta unacceptable business practices; gate group 6.
Treatment
Used only if verified true with the clinic. Otherwise removed entirely.
Verdict
REQUIRES REWRITEAPPROVED TO PROCEED, only when true
Treatment areaThe line that matters
Anti-wrinkleThe highest-risk category for prescription brand naming; the practitioner must be identified as a healthcare professional.
Dermal fillersReversibility is a legitimate reassurance, and must be factually correct for the specific product.
Laser hair removalNever claim permanence, never imply suitability for all skin types; honest limitation is a strong position in this category.
Body contouringThe category we see rejected most often; framed around the process, never the body.
Skin treatmentsDiscussing a concern at a consultation is fine; naming a condition and offering to treat it is not.

The principle underneath: almost every violation is a promise about a result. The compliant version offers a conversation instead. That is why every campaign the system runs leads to a consultation, never to a treatment purchase.

Fifteen minutes on how your clinic gets customers, with this gate in the room.

The standard applies to us too: no manufactured scarcity on this website, no invented testimonial, no claim without its evidence beside it.