.png)
Quick answer: In Australia and the US, brands are legally responsible for influencer health claims made on their behalf, including content they didn't write, didn't approve, and didn't know existed. Both the Therapeutic Goods Advertising Code in Australia and the FTC's Endorsement Guides in the US make the brand accountable. Enforcement is active, penalties are significant, and most health brands are considerably underprepared.
In June 2025, the TGA took two of Australia's most recognisable media brands to Federal Court, and the health and wellness industry has largely failed to absorb what that means. This wasn't a fly-by-night supplement company or a rogue social media account with three thousand followers. The case involves articles published by Mamamia and Body + Soul in 2022 and 2023, which the TGA claims contained unauthorised endorsements and prohibited representations in breach of Australia's advertising code for therapeutic goods, following a PR campaign organised by a therapeutic goods brand and its agency partner. Skyquestt
The articles allegedly included testimonials and endorsements from a nurse and a doctor, both of whom are prohibited from giving endorsements under the Therapeutic Goods Advertising Code. The TGA is pursuing declarations and financial penalties against all parties simultaneously: the brand, the publisher, the PR firm, and the company director personally. Nutrition Insight
If you're a health or wellness brand that has ever briefed a PR agency, gifted product to an influencer, placed editorial content with a media partner, or sent talking points to a creator, this case is directly relevant to how your business operates. Understanding exactly how influencer health claims create brand liability is now one of the most consequential compliance questions in the category.
How Far Does Brand Liability for Influencer Health Claims Actually Extend?
The Mamamia case is the most visible recent example of a principle that has been embedded in Australian therapeutic goods law for years and is now being enforced with genuine intent: brands are responsible for the advertising ecosystem they create, not just the campaigns they sign off on directly.
The TGA recommends that businesses review content made by any influencers and content creators they engage with to ensure compliance, and where advertising is paid for and posted on a business's behalf, the brand may be responsible for any non-compliance. Nutritional Outlook
The operative phrase is "posted on a business's behalf," and its scope is broader than most brand teams intuit. Paid influencer posts are the obvious case, but the liability extends considerably further than that. When a creator receives a gifted product and posts content making health claims about it, the material connection created by the gift brings that content into regulatory scope, regardless of whether the brand requested a post, reviewed the content, or had any knowledge of what the creator intended to say. PR-placed editorial falls within the same framework, as the Mamamia case makes explicit: content placed by a PR firm as part of a campaign constitutes advertising under the Therapeutic Goods Act, regardless of how it reads editorially on the publisher's side. Advertorials, sponsored content, and any paid placement that incorporates health claims about your product are all captured by the same principle.
Historical posts must also remain compliant regardless of date, and brands should actively monitor their channels to remove unlawful posts and ensure testimonials meet legislative requirements. A post from three years ago that is still live and still making a health claim remains the brand's responsibility today, which is a compliance obligation that many brands have never thought seriously about. Motley Fool
Three Different Regulatory Frameworks, One Campaign
One of the most dangerous misconceptions in health brand marketing is the assumption that a claim cleared in one context is safe everywhere else, and a claim that clears one regulatory framework doesn't automatically clear the others. In practice, a brand's marketing activity is governed by three distinct standards simultaneously, and each operates independently. Nutrition Insight
The label is governed in Australia by the TGA's permitted indications framework, where the ARTG entry specifies exactly what the product can claim. In the US, structure/function claims fall under FDA standards set out in 21 CFR 101.93. Advertising, which includes social media posts, paid placements, and influencer content, is governed in Australia by the Therapeutic Goods Advertising Code and in the US by the FTC's competent and reliable scientific evidence standard. Influencer and creator content specifically is governed in the US by the FTC's Endorsement Guides under 16 CFR Part 255, which impose disclosure and substantiation requirements on both the brand and the creator, while in Australia the Advertising Code applies to all therapeutic goods advertising regardless of format or channel.
A claim might sit comfortably within a brand's ARTG permitted indications, appear without issue in product advertising, and still create a regulatory breach when an influencer phrases it in a way that implies an outcome beyond what the evidence supports. All three surfaces need to be managed together rather than treated as separate problems owned by separate teams.
What Does the US Enforcement Picture Look Like?
For brands operating in the US or with US market ambitions, the FTC's framework around influencer health claims has been tightening considerably. Under the FTC's Endorsement Guides, brands are responsible for claims made by endorsers acting on their behalf, including creators who received free product, affiliate commissions, or any other material connection to the brand, and the FTC can hold a brand liable for a creator's health claim regardless of whether the brand scripted it, reviewed it, or even knew it existed. PubMed Central
In the first half of 2025, a coordinated wave of class actions targeted major brands including Celsius, Shein, Revolve, and Alo Yoga alongside individual influencers, alleging that undisclosed paid endorsements violated state consumer protection laws. These aren't small operators with limited legal resources. They're well-resourced brands with experienced marketing and legal teams, and they still found themselves defending class actions over influencer content they may not even have been directly involved in creating. The FTC has filed 120 cases over the past decade challenging health claims made for supplements, and the pace of enforcement shows no sign of slowing as the category continues to grow. ScienceDirectBlueprint
Enforcement risk is highest for wellness, functional food, and dietary supplement brands, where influencer content often blends lifestyle messaging with implied health or efficacy claims. The supplement category sits squarely at the intersection of the FTC's two highest-priority enforcement areas, health claim substantiation and influencer disclosure, which makes it one of the most scrutinised marketing environments in consumer goods. NOVOS
Which Types of Influencer Content Create the Most Exposure?
Not all influencer content carries equal risk, and understanding which content creates the most significant regulatory exposure is where practical compliance work actually starts.
Testimonials about specific outcomes are probably the most common problem. When a creator says "this supplement cleared my brain fog" or "I lost 8 kilos on this" or "my anxiety disappeared after two weeks," they are making outcome claims that are held to exactly the same substantiation standard as any label claim, and the fact that a creator said it rather than the brand's label doesn't change what it implies to a reasonable consumer.
Healthcare professional endorsements create compounded exposure. Under the Therapeutic Goods Advertising Code, certain individuals including healthcare professionals are prohibited from giving endorsements for therapeutic goods, which means an influencer who is also a nurse, GP, naturopath, or registered health professional creates a specific category of breach beyond the general liability framework. Nutrition Insight
Euphemistic therapeutic claims are a particularly instructive case, because the TGA alleged that Atlus used a range of euphemisms including "plant medicine" in its advertising, and the lesson extends well beyond cannabis. Using indirect language to imply a therapeutic benefit, whether that's "supports your body's natural healing" or "works with your biology" or "helps your system find balance," doesn't reduce a claim's regulatory status because regulators assess the net impression on a reasonable consumer rather than the literal wording chosen. Nutrition Insight
TikTok and short-form video deserve specific attention given the channel's growth trajectory. TikTok Shop and influencer marketing are now the primary drivers of supplement growth in what has become a $72.9 billion industry, but the format creates specific compliance risks because verbal claims in video are considerably harder to monitor than written posts, before-and-after content is endemic to the platform, and viral content can reach enormous audiences before a brand's compliance team is even aware it exists. Grand View Research
What Compliant Influencer Health Marketing Actually Looks Like
None of this means brands should abandon influencer marketing as a channel, because the commercial case for it remains strong and the consumer trust it generates is genuinely valuable. What it means is that the briefing and governance process needs to reflect the same rigour that applies to label claims and formal advertising.
Compliant influencer marketing for health brands requires a claim brief as well as a creative brief, where creators receive clear guidance on permitted claim language drawn directly from the brand's ARTG entry or regulatory evidence file, alongside explicit guidance on what is off-limits. This brief needs to be documented, both because it protects the brand if content goes wrong and because it demonstrates the "reasonable efforts" standard that both TGA and FTC frameworks require.
While brands are not expected to be aware of every statement made on social media by influencers, the FTC expects they will take reasonable efforts to know what is being said on their behalf and take remedial action when violations occur, which in practice means a content review step before posting for paid partnerships and an active monitoring process for gifted product campaigns. PubMed
Creator agreements need to work harder than most currently do, specifying permitted claim language, requiring compliance with the Therapeutic Goods Advertising Code and relevant ACCC requirements, including an indemnity clause, and giving the brand the right to request removal of non-compliant content. Influencer testimonials and customer reviews are not considered valid evidence under TGA and ACCC guidelines, which means they can't be used to substantiate a health claim and need to be actively managed rather than treated as organic user-generated content. SSRN
A documented takedown protocol is equally important. When non-compliant content is identified, whether from a paid creator, a gifted product recipient, or an organic post tagging the brand, there needs to be a process for requesting removal and documenting that request. The TGA's case records indicate that Atlus received multiple written warnings before proceedings were commenced, and brands that respond promptly and demonstrably to identified issues are in a materially better position than those that don't.
The Question Worth Asking Before Your Next Campaign Brief Goes Out
The Mamamia case is still before the Federal Court and its outcome isn't yet determined, but the proceedings themselves have already done something significant: they've made explicit, in the most public way possible, that the TGA will pursue publishers, PR firms, and brands simultaneously for advertising that breaches the Therapeutic Goods Act, and that editorial framing, influencer authenticity, and arm's-length agency relationships provide no meaningful protection.
Before your next influencer campaign brief goes out, the question worth sitting with is whether, if every piece of content in that campaign were reviewed by the TGA tomorrow, you could demonstrate that every claim was within your permitted indications, every creator had been briefed on what they could and couldn't say, and every piece of non-compliant content had been identified and addressed. If the honest answer is anything less than yes, the campaign isn't ready.
The good news is that building that readiness isn't a science problem, it's a process problem, and for health brands willing to build it properly, it creates a genuine competitive advantage in a category where most brands are still operating on instinct and hoping the exposure stays theoretical.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can Australian health brands be held liable for what influencers say about their products?Yes. Under the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989 and the Therapeutic Goods Advertising Code, brands are responsible for advertising of therapeutic goods published on their behalf, including content created by influencers, PR partners, and media outlets as part of brand campaigns. The TGA's Federal Court proceedings commenced in June 2025 against Mamamia, Body + Soul, and a PR firm alongside the therapeutic goods brand make this framework explicit and enforceable.
Does gifting a product to an influencer create health claim liability?Yes, in both Australia and the US. The material connection created by a gifted product is sufficient to bring the influencer's subsequent content within the brand's liability framework, even if the brand didn't request a post, didn't review the content, and had no knowledge of what the creator intended to say. Under the FTC's Endorsement Guides, no payment is required because the gift itself establishes the material relationship.
What types of influencer content create health claim liability in Australia?Any content that implies a therapeutic benefit falls within the scope of the Therapeutic Goods Advertising Code, including outcome testimonials, before-and-after imagery, healthcare professional endorsements, and euphemistic language for therapeutic uses. Influencer testimonials and customer reviews are not considered valid evidence under TGA and ACCC guidelines and cannot be used to substantiate a health claim.
Are US supplement brands liable for influencer health claims they didn't write?Yes. Under the FTC's Endorsement Guides (16 CFR Part 255), a brand is responsible for health claims made by creators who received free product, affiliate commissions, or any other material connection to the brand, regardless of whether the brand scripted or reviewed the content. The material connection alone is sufficient to establish the relationship and the associated liability.
Does TikTok influencer content create the same liability as Instagram posts?Yes. The regulatory frameworks in both Australia and the US apply to all social media platforms regardless of format or channel. TikTok creates additional practical compliance risk because verbal claims in short-form video are harder to monitor than written posts, before-and-after content is endemic to the platform, and viral content can reach large audiences before compliance teams are aware it exists.
What should a compliant influencer brief for a health brand include?At minimum, a compliant brief should specify permitted claim language drawn directly from the brand's ARTG entry or regulatory evidence file, explicitly prohibited claim types, a requirement for disclosure of the commercial relationship, a content review step before posting for paid partnerships, and contractual protections including indemnity and takedown rights.
What is the Therapeutic Goods Advertising Code and does it apply to social media?The Therapeutic Goods (Therapeutic Goods Advertising Code) Instrument 2021 governs all advertising of therapeutic goods in Australia, including content published on social media. It applies to paid posts, gifted product content, PR-placed editorial, and advertorials, and it applies to historical posts that remain live regardless of when they were originally published.
What happened in the TGA's case against Mamamia and Body + Soul?In June 2025, the TGA commenced Federal Court proceedings against Mamamia, News Life Media (publisher of Body + Soul), PR agency Straight Up, and therapeutic goods brand Atlus for alleged unlawful advertising of medicinal cannabis. The proceedings involve editorial articles published in 2022 and 2023 as part of a PR campaign, which the TGA alleges contained restricted representations, prohibited testimonials from healthcare professionals, and euphemistic claims about therapeutic use. The TGA is pursuing declarations and financial penalties against all parties including the company director personally, and proceedings are ongoing.
At Parallaxis, we help health and wellness brands understand exactly where their marketing, including their influencer and media activity, sits against their regulatory obligations. If you're not sure whether your current campaign is compliant, that's the right question to be asking. Get in touch.