FTC vs. Telehealth:
Advertising Compliance for Peptide and TRT Services

FTC Telehealth Advertising: Quick Answer

FTC telehealth advertising compliance requires that all health-related claims made by peptide therapy and TRT clinics be truthful, non-deceptive, and substantiated by competent and reliable scientific evidence — typically well-designed human clinical studies — before the advertisement runs. Advertising compliance sits alongside a broader regulatory stack that includes HIPAA compliance for specialty medicine telehealth, DEA prescribing rules, and state-level consumer protection laws — each of which creates independent enforcement exposure. Section 5 of the FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45) prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices in commerce and applies to every advertising channel: websites, social media, paid search, email, video, podcasts, and influencer content. Testimonials and before/after imagery must depict outcomes that are typical of what consumers can expect, or they must carry a clear and conspicuous disclosure that results are not typical. Peptide therapy clinics must distinguish between structure/function claims (permissible with substantiation) and drug claims (which trigger FDA drug approval requirements and FTC enforcement risk). State-level advertising laws in New York, California, and Florida layer additional requirements on top of federal standards. Google Ads and Meta both require healthcare advertiser certification and prohibit exaggerated health claims. Recent FTC enforcement actions against telehealth companies — particularly around subscription billing practices and unsubstantiated efficacy claims — establish the enforcement floor that every clinic must clear.

FTC Act Section 5: Unfair and Deceptive Practices

Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. § 45) is the foundational federal advertising law that applies to virtually every U.S. business engaged in commerce — including telehealth platforms operating across state lines. The statute prohibits "unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce." For advertising compliance purposes, the two operative concepts are deception and unfairness.

For telehealth clinics advertising peptide therapy or TRT services, Section 5 creates compliance obligations across every public-facing communication. A landing page claiming that a peptide protocol "reverses aging at the cellular level" is subject to the same substantiation standard as a television commercial. An Instagram post featuring a provider endorsing BPC-157 results is subject to the endorsement rules. A cart abandonment email citing a time-limited offer that is not actually time-limited is potentially deceptive.

The FTC Act applies extraterritorially to the extent that deceptive practices affect U.S. consumers. A telehealth company headquartered in a different country but marketing to U.S. patients is subject to FTC jurisdiction. The FTC can seek civil penalties of up to $51,744 per violation for violations of trade regulation rules (such as the Endorsements and Testimonials Guides codified at 16 CFR Part 255), injunctive relief, consumer redress, and disgorgement of ill-gotten gains.

Health Claims Substantiation Standard

The FTC's health claims substantiation standard requires that advertisers possess "competent and reliable scientific evidence" — defined as tests, analyses, research, studies, or other evidence that has been conducted and evaluated in an objective manner by qualified experts using procedures generally accepted in the relevant scientific fields — sufficient to support the claim at the time the claim is made.

The substantiation standard is not uniform across all types of health claims. It is calibrated to the type of claim being made:

• Establishment claims ("clinically proven to increase free testosterone by 40%") require the specific type and level of proof referenced in the claim — in this example, a clinical trial demonstrating a 40% increase in free testosterone. If the cited study is the only one and it has methodological weaknesses, the claim may still be deceptive even if the study exists.
• Implied efficacy claims (claims that imply scientific support without citing it) require the same level of evidence that would substantiate an express claim — typically well-designed, placebo-controlled human clinical trials for health outcomes.
• General structure/function claims ("supports muscle recovery") require competent and reliable scientific evidence, which may include the totality of evidence rather than a single definitive trial — but the evidence must still be credible and relevant to the specific product and population.
• Disease treatment claims ("treats hypogonadism," "cures erectile dysfunction") require pre-market FDA approval if made for a product, because such claims render the product a drug under the FDCA. The FTC will refer to the FDA and may independently pursue these as deceptive claims if they are unsubstantiated.

The Deception Analysis: Context and Net Impression

FTC deception analysis focuses on the "net impression" conveyed to a reasonable consumer — not the literal text of individual claims read in isolation. This matters enormously for telehealth advertising because it means that a technically accurate disclaimer does not cure a deceptive headline. If a landing page headline reads "Lose 30 Pounds in 30 Days" and the fine-print disclaimer says "results not typical and require strict diet and exercise," the FTC will evaluate the net impression conveyed to a reasonable consumer who reads the headline and may not read the disclaimer. The headline-driven net impression is likely deceptive.

The net impression analysis applies across all advertising elements simultaneously: visuals, headlines, body copy, testimonials, before/after images, social proof statements ("over 50,000 patients treated"), and pricing claims all contribute to the overall impression. A facially compliant claim in body copy can be contradicted by a visual that conveys a different — and potentially deceptive — message.

What You Can and Cannot Claim About Peptide Therapy

Peptide therapy advertising presents unique compliance challenges because the scientific evidence base for many commercially marketed peptides is thin (primarily animal studies or small human trials), the compounds exist in a regulatory gray zone between compounded drugs and research chemicals, and consumer demand is driven by aspirational wellness outcomes that are difficult to substantiate with rigorous clinical evidence.

Telehealth clinics offering peptide services must navigate this landscape carefully. The compliance framework distinguishes between claims that are permissible (with appropriate substantiation and disclosure) and claims that expose the company to FTC enforcement risk regardless of how they are framed.

Drug Claims vs. Structure/Function Claims

The drug claim vs. structure/function claim distinction is fundamental to both FDA and FTC compliance. Under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), a product is a "drug" if it is intended to diagnose, cure, mitigate, treat, or prevent a disease or condition. When a telehealth company makes claims that render its peptide services a drug, it faces both FDA enforcement (for marketing unapproved drugs) and FTC enforcement (for deceptive health claims).

Structure/function claims describe how a substance affects the body's structure or function without referencing a disease. They are permissible with substantiation but must not imply disease treatment or prevention. The line between a compliant structure/function claim and a prohibited drug claim is often a matter of specific word choice and contextual framing.

Compliant vs. Non-Compliant Claims Table

The following examples illustrate the practical application of FTC standards to common peptide and TRT advertising claims. These are not exhaustive and do not substitute for legal review of specific advertising copy.

Before/After Restrictions and Testimonial Requirements

The FTC's Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising (16 CFR Part 255), comprehensively revised in 2023, govern how telehealth clinics can use patient testimonials, provider endorsements, and before/after imagery. The 2023 revision significantly tightened requirements and introduced new obligations around social media, influencers, and atypical results.

The core principle: a testimonial or endorsement must reflect the honest opinion of the endorser, and it must not convey any representation that the advertiser could not substantiate as a direct claim. If an advertiser would not be permitted to directly claim "you will lose 40 pounds," then running a testimonial that says "I lost 40 pounds" without disclosing that this is atypical is equally impermissible.

Typical Results Disclosure

When a testimonial depicts results that are not what consumers generally achieve with the product, the advertiser must clearly disclose what results consumers can typically expect. The 2023 revision eliminated the old "results not typical" safe harbor. The current standard requires disclosure of actual typical results — not just a statement that results are atypical.

For peptide therapy and TRT advertising, this creates a practical compliance challenge: if clinical outcome data for the clinic's protocols does not exist or has not been systematically collected, the clinic cannot accurately represent what "typical" results look like. Some compliance strategies include:

• Collecting and analyzing patient outcomes data systematically, then using the actual distribution of outcomes to inform testimonial selection and disclosure language.
• Using only testimonials that represent outcomes achievable by a broad range of patients, not just exceptional responders.
• Replacing outcome-specific testimonials (weight loss numbers, lab value improvements) with experience testimonials (quality of care, provider responsiveness) that are not subject to the same substantiation burden.
• Where outcome testimonials are used, displaying clear, prominent disclosure of typical results in equivalent visual weight to the testimonial claim itself.

Material Connections and Influencer Rules

The 2023 revision of 16 CFR Part 255 significantly expanded the disclosure requirements for material connections between endorsers and advertisers. A "material connection" is any relationship that a consumer would not reasonably expect that might affect the credibility of an endorsement — including payment, free products, services, discounts, equity, family relationships, or employment.

For telehealth companies, the most common material connection issues include:

• Paid patient testimonials: Any patient who receives compensation (including free treatment, discounts, or gift cards) in exchange for providing a testimonial must disclose this. The disclosure must be clear, conspicuous, and in close proximity to the testimonial.
• Provider endorsements: A provider who is employed by or has a financial relationship with the telehealth company must disclose this when endorsing the company's services, even if their clinical statement is technically accurate.
• Influencer partnerships: Social media influencers — including fitness influencers, lifestyle creators, and health podcasters — who receive compensation or free treatment in exchange for content must disclose the material connection using unambiguous language. "#ad," "#sponsored," and similar labels are required. "#gifted" or vague language like "#partner" is insufficient in most contexts.
• Affiliate relationships: Content creators who earn commissions on referrals to the telehealth company must disclose this relationship. The disclosure obligation applies even to content that appears "organic" or editorial in nature.

FDA Intersection: Drug Claims, Compounding, and Off-Label

The FDA and FTC have overlapping but distinct jurisdictions over telehealth advertising. The FDA regulates the marketing of drugs and devices under the FDCA; the FTC regulates deceptive advertising under Section 5. For telehealth companies advertising compounded peptides and TRT services, both agencies' rules apply simultaneously and sometimes create contradictory pressures.

The critical FDA intersection points for advertising compliance are:

Compounded Drug Advertising

Compounded medications prepared under 503A (patient-specific prescription) or 503B (outsourcing facility) exemptions are not FDA-approved drugs. The FDA does not pre-approve their labeling or advertising. However, FDA regulations and FDCA provisions still apply: claims in advertising that imply FDA approval, or that make disease treatment claims, can be scrutinized by the FDA as evidence of the company's intent to sell an unapproved drug. Telehealth companies should also be aware that compounded peptide advertising creates DSCSA traceability obligations — ensuring the compounding pharmacy can document the supply chain for every dispensed compound — as explained in our guide to DSCSA compliance for compounding pharmacies serving telehealth clinics. When a telehealth company's advertising positions BPC-157 as a treatment for tendon injuries or growth hormone deficiency, it creates a record of "intended use" that can be used to establish that the compounded substance is being sold as an unapproved drug.

Off-Label Prescribing vs. Off-Label Promotion

Licensed providers are permitted to prescribe FDA-approved drugs off-label based on clinical judgment. However, pharmaceutical manufacturers and telehealth companies are not permitted to promote drugs for off-label uses. Testosterone is FDA-approved for hypogonadism, but not for general "testosterone optimization" in men with normal testosterone levels. A telehealth company that advertises TRT for "men over 40 who want to feel their best" — without limiting the service to clinically diagnosed hypogonadism — is operating in off-label promotion territory that the FDA has consistently challenged.

Structure/Function Claims and the FDA Disclaimer

Dietary supplement companies are required by the FDCA to include a specific FDA disclaimer when making structure/function claims: "This statement has not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease." While this disclaimer is technically required only for dietary supplements marketed under 21 U.S.C. § 343(r), many telehealth companies advertising peptide services include it by analogy as a risk mitigation measure. Its presence does not, by itself, immunize a claim from FTC challenge — a deceptive claim accompanied by an FDA disclaimer is still deceptive — but it signals to regulators that the company is not asserting FDA approval.

State Advertising Laws: New York, California, Florida

Federal FTC Act compliance is the floor, not the ceiling. State consumer protection laws and state-specific health advertising regulations impose additional requirements — and in many cases provide state attorneys general with enforcement authority that supplements the FTC's federal enforcement reach.

New York

New York General Business Law Section 349 prohibits deceptive acts and practices in the conduct of any business in New York. Section 350 specifically prohibits false advertising. Unlike the FTC Act, GBL §§ 349 and 350 provide a private right of action to individual consumers, meaning New York patients can sue telehealth companies directly for deceptive health advertising without waiting for AG enforcement. Damages include actual damages or $50 per violation (whichever is greater), plus attorneys' fees, and up to treble damages in certain cases. The New York AG has been active in pursuing health advertising claims, including actions against weight loss and wellness companies making unsubstantiated claims to New York consumers.

New York also has specific regulations on health advertising through the Department of Health. Providers advertising medical services must comply with 8 NYCRR Part 29 (unprofessional conduct regulations), which prohibits health care professionals from advertising in a manner that is false, fraudulent, deceptive, or misleading. For telehealth companies with licensed New York providers, this professional conduct standard applies to any advertising in which providers appear or are referenced.

California

California's consumer protection framework is among the most aggressive in the country. The California Unfair Competition Law (Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200) prohibits any unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business act or practice and any unfair, deceptive, untrue, or misleading advertising. The California False Advertising Law (Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500) specifically prohibits disseminating advertising for goods or services that is untrue or misleading. Both statutes provide a private right of action under California's Unfair Competition Law, allowing individual consumers and class action plaintiffs to sue for restitution and injunctive relief.

California's AG and district attorneys also have enforcement authority under these statutes. The California Medical Board has enforcement authority over physician advertising under Business and Professions Code §§ 651 and 2261, which prohibit licensed physicians from advertising in a false or deceptive manner. For telehealth companies operating with California-licensed physicians, these professional conduct standards apply to all advertising where the physician is presented as the medical professional responsible for treatment.

California also has specific rules on health product advertising under Health and Safety Code § 110398, which prohibits marketing of food, dietary supplements, and health products with false or misleading claims. While primarily applicable to products, the principles extend to service advertising making health outcome claims.

Florida

Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA, Fla. Stat. § 501.201 et seq.) mirrors the FTC Act's prohibition on unfair or deceptive practices but provides additional private remedies for Florida consumers. Florida courts have applied FDUTPA broadly to health advertising claims, including dietary supplement and wellness advertising. The Florida AG's consumer protection division actively pursues health advertising violations.

Florida's Board of Medicine regulates physician advertising under Fla. Stat. § 458.331 and Fla. Admin. Code Rule 64B8-11.001, which prohibit physicians from advertising in a manner that is likely to mislead or deceive the public, that contains a false or misleading claim, or that guarantees treatment outcomes. For telehealth companies with Florida-licensed providers, these physician advertising rules are a separate compliance layer on top of FDUTPA and FTC requirements.

Florida has also been a particularly active state for enforcement against men's health telehealth companies specifically, given the concentration of telehealth clinics headquartered in South Florida and the Florida AG's focus on DTC health advertising.

Advertising Channel Compliance Matrix

Each major advertising channel has its own policy framework that layers on top of FTC and state legal requirements. Compliance is not satisfied by legal compliance alone — platform policies must also be followed, or campaigns will be rejected, accounts suspended, or reach throttled.

Google Ads Healthcare Policies

Google's Healthcare and Medicines advertising policy governs all ads related to medical treatments, pharmaceuticals, and health services. For telehealth companies advertising TRT and peptide services, the most relevant requirements are:

• Healthcare and Medicines Certification: Advertisers promoting prescription drug services must be certified through Google's healthcare certification program. Certification requires providing documentation of licensure, compliance with applicable laws, and acceptance of Google's healthcare advertiser requirements.
• Unapproved pharmaceuticals: Google prohibits advertising of pharmaceuticals that have not been approved for sale or use in the country where the ad is shown. Compounded peptides that lack FDA approval in their compounded form create policy ambiguity — Google may classify BPC-157, TB-500, or other compounded peptides as unapproved pharmaceuticals and reject ads referencing them by name.
• Misleading claims: Google prohibits ads that make false claims, exaggerated claims, or claims that are likely to mislead users. This applies to health outcome claims (weight loss guarantees, testosterone restoration claims) and to pricing claims (bait-and-switch subscription structures).
• Sensitive health conditions: Ads targeting sensitive health conditions (including hormonal disorders, sexual dysfunction, and weight-related conditions) may face additional restrictions or require LegitScript certification depending on the specific condition and treatment referenced.
• LegitScript certification: For online pharmacy and telehealth services, LegitScript certification is increasingly required by Google as a condition of advertising eligibility. LegitScript reviews pharmacy practices, prescribing standards, and compliance programs before certifying a telehealth advertiser.

Meta and Instagram Health Advertising Restrictions

Meta's Advertising Standards for health and wellness are among the most restrictive of any major digital platform. The relevant policies for telehealth advertisers include:

• Health and pharmaceutical advertising: Meta requires prior written permission for ads that promote pharmaceutical products or services. Telehealth companies advertising prescription services (TRT, prescription peptide protocols) must apply for and receive this permission before running ads.
• Before/after imagery prohibition: Meta's advertising policies explicitly prohibit before/after images or images depicting unexpected or unlikely results. This is a categorical prohibition that applies regardless of disclaimer language — a before/after body composition comparison cannot be run on Meta's platforms even with full FTC-compliant disclosure language.
• Health claims restrictions: Meta restricts ads that imply users have a health condition, make exaggerated health claims, or promote products with misleading health benefits. This includes ads that use "Are you suffering from low testosterone?" framing or imply that the viewer has a diagnosable condition.
• Special Ad Categories: Advertisers promoting healthcare services may be required to run campaigns as "Special Ad Category" campaigns, which restrict audience targeting options (no behavioral health targeting, no lookalike audiences based on health engagement) and require additional compliance documentation.
• Influencer content disclosure: Meta requires that paid partnerships be disclosed using its Branded Content tool, which displays a "Paid partnership with [brand]" label on posts. This is in addition to FTC disclosure requirements. Failure to use the Branded Content tool when required can result in content removal and account restrictions.

Email Marketing: CAN-SPAM and Health Claims

Email marketing for telehealth services must comply with the CAN-SPAM Act (15 U.S.C. § 7701 et seq.) as well as FTC health claims standards applied to the email context. CAN-SPAM requirements for commercial email include:

• No false or misleading header information: The "From," "To," and routing information must accurately identify the sender. Emails from a telehealth company must identify the company — not a generic sender name designed to obscure the commercial nature of the message.
• No deceptive subject lines: The subject line cannot deceive the recipient about the contents of the email. "Important health information for you" used to deliver a promotional email is deceptive. "Our new peptide protocol is now available" is commercial and compliant.
• Clear commercial identification: The email must identify itself as an advertisement in a clear and conspicuous manner (unless the recipient has given affirmative consent to receive promotional emails from the sender).
• Physical address: The email must include the sender's valid physical postal address.
• Opt-out mechanism: Every commercial email must include a clear mechanism for recipients to opt out of future emails, and opt-out requests must be honored within 10 business days.
• No sale of opt-out lists: Email addresses of recipients who have opted out cannot be sold or transferred to third parties for any purpose other than complying with the opt-out request.

Beyond CAN-SPAM, health claims made in email marketing are subject to the same FTC substantiation and deception standards that apply to any other advertising medium. A promotional email claiming "our GLP-1 protocol achieves 15% body weight reduction" must be substantiated. A testimonial email featuring a patient's dramatic results must include the same typical results disclosure that would be required in a display ad.

Email marketing for telehealth also intersects with HIPAA when the email list includes individuals who have previously received treatment from the clinic. Communications with existing patients about their treatment options may constitute health care operations (permissible under HIPAA with appropriate authorization) or marketing (which requires prior written authorization). Telehealth companies should ensure their email marketing practices are reviewed against HIPAA's marketing provisions, not just CAN-SPAM. Using third-party email platforms that lack a signed BAA to send messages referencing patient health information can itself constitute a HIPAA breach — a risk covered in detail in our article on HIPAA breach prevention for telehealth platforms.

Content Marketing vs. Advertising Distinction

Telehealth companies frequently invest in educational content — blog posts, whitepapers, video explainers, social media educational posts — under the assumption that educational content is held to a lower compliance standard than advertising. This assumption is partially correct but frequently oversimplified in ways that create compliance risk.

The FTC and courts apply a "commercial speech" analysis that looks at whether the content is advertising (created and distributed to sell a product or service) or genuinely educational (created to inform, regardless of commercial benefit). Factors that convert apparent educational content into advertising include: prominent brand placement, calls to action, pricing information, links to a purchase or sign-up flow, testimonials, and claims that are directly tied to the company's commercial offerings.

A blog post titled "What is BPC-157?" written in an objective educational style, with accurate information, minimal brand integration, and no direct call to action, is more likely to be evaluated as content marketing with a lower FTC scrutiny burden. A blog post titled "Why Our BPC-157 Protocol Outperforms Competitors" with testimonials, specific outcome claims, and a sign-up button is advertising — and is subject to full FTC compliance requirements regardless of the "blog post" format.

Recent FTC Enforcement Against Telehealth Advertisers

The FTC has substantially increased its enforcement activity in the telehealth and direct-to-consumer health services space since 2022. The following enforcement actions and investigations are directly instructive for peptide and TRT telehealth advertisers:

FTC v. Cerebral, Inc. (2023)

The FTC filed a complaint against Cerebral, Inc. — a mental health telehealth company — alleging that Cerebral made deceptive claims about its services, used dark patterns to prevent patients from canceling subscriptions, and shared sensitive patient health data with third-party advertisers in violation of its privacy policy. The case resulted in a $7 million settlement and a comprehensive injunctive order requiring Cerebral to clearly disclose all subscription terms, provide easy cancellation mechanisms, and obtain consumer consent before sharing health data. The Cerebral case is directly applicable to subscription-based TRT and peptide telehealth models: recurring billing structures, cancellation friction, and health data sharing are all now clearly within the FTC's enforcement crosshairs for telehealth companies. Cash-pay subscription models in particular must be structured with clear pricing disclosures and straightforward cancellation — for a full breakdown of compliant billing structures, see our guide to cash-pay compliance for specialty medicine telehealth.

FTC Warning Letters to Telehealth COVID-19 Sellers (2021–2023)

The FTC issued more than 400 warning letters to companies making unsubstantiated COVID-19 treatment claims between 2020 and 2023. Several of these were directed at telehealth companies promoting "immune support" protocols involving vitamins, supplements, and off-label compounded substances. The warning letters establish that the FTC actively monitors digital advertising for health claims in emerging telehealth markets and will act quickly — through warning letters and referrals to the DOJ — when it identifies systematic violations.

FTC Operation Stop Scam Calls and Health Product Enforcement (2024)

The FTC's 2024 enforcement sweep targeting deceptive health product telemarketers included actions against companies using deceptive testimonials, false scarcity claims, and fabricated clinical study references. While primarily targeting traditional telemarketing operations, the sweep established evidentiary standards for what constitutes a "fabricated" or "misleading" health claim that apply directly to online advertising.

NAD Actions Against Men's Health Brands (Ongoing)

The National Advertising Division — the self-regulatory body of the advertising industry — has challenged multiple men's health and testosterone support brands for advertising claims that lack adequate substantiation. NAD challenges are not FTC enforcement actions, but adverse NAD decisions are frequently cited by the FTC as evidence of an industry's awareness that a particular type of claim is problematic. Companies that receive an adverse NAD decision and continue making the challenged claim are at elevated FTC enforcement risk.

NAD Challenges in the Wellness Space

The National Advertising Division of BBB National Programs (NAD) is the advertising industry's primary self-regulatory body and handles advertising challenges brought by competitors, consumers, or the NAD itself through its ongoing monitoring program. NAD cases are not legally binding in the same way that FTC orders are, but they carry significant practical weight in the telehealth advertising space for several reasons:

• FTC referrals: Companies that receive adverse NAD decisions and fail to comply with NAD's recommendations are referred to the FTC for possible enforcement action. This referral pathway is well-established and actively used.
• Competitor intelligence: NAD challenges are frequently initiated by competitors. A men's health telehealth company advertising unsubstantiated efficacy claims may face an NAD challenge from a competitor — which, if successful, will be published publicly and may trigger additional scrutiny from the FTC.
• Industry standard-setting: NAD decisions establish what types of evidence are considered adequate substantiation for specific categories of claims. Companies that rely on NAD decisions from comparable cases in structuring their advertising are better positioned to defend those claims in FTC proceedings.

Recent NAD actions relevant to telehealth advertisers include challenges to testosterone supplement advertising claiming "clinically proven" results without adequately powered human clinical trials; wellness company advertising for peptide-adjacent products making anti-aging and cellular regeneration claims; and telehealth company advertising for weight loss services using before/after imagery without adequate typical results disclosure. Telehealth companies should monitor NAD's published case decisions as a leading indicator of FTC enforcement interest in specific claim types.

Safe Harbor Language and Disclaimer Best Practices

There is no disclaimer that serves as a complete "safe harbor" from FTC enforcement. The FTC's position, consistently stated in guidance and enforcement actions, is that a disclaimer cannot be used to save a claim that is otherwise deceptive. An accurate disclaimer on an inaccurate claim does not make the overall advertisement truthful. With that foundational principle in place, best-practice disclaimer language for telehealth advertising addresses the specific risks identified by the FTC and does so in a way that is actually clear and conspicuous to consumers.

Disclaimer Best Practices

Clear and Conspicuous Standard

The FTC's "clear and conspicuous" standard for disclaimers requires that the disclosure be presented so that it is noticeable, readable, and understandable. Specific requirements include:

• Placement: Disclaimers must appear near the claim they modify, not buried in a separate terms of service document or at the bottom of a long scrolling page.
• Size and contrast: Disclaimer text must be in a font size and color contrast that allows it to be read without unusual effort. Disclaimers in 7-point gray text on a white background are not clear and conspicuous.
• Timing in video: In video advertising, disclaimers that flash briefly at the end of the video do not satisfy the clear and conspicuous standard if the primary claims are made prominently throughout the video.
• Mobile display: Disclaimers must be clear and conspicuous on mobile devices — not just on desktop displays. Text that is readable at full-screen width may become illegible at mobile width if sizing is not considered.
• Non-interference: Other design elements (images, buttons, visual effects) cannot obscure or distract from the disclaimer display.

Social Media Disclaimer Mechanics

On social media platforms, disclaimers face additional practical challenges. Instagram's "more" truncation hides post text beyond approximately 125 characters on mobile. A disclaimer placed after the truncation point will not be seen by most users. FTC guidance on social media disclosures (most recently updated in 2023) requires that disclosures appear before the "more" truncation — within the first 125 characters — when the disclosure is material to the claim made in the post.

For video content on TikTok, YouTube, and Instagram Reels, audio-only disclaimers are insufficient. Disclosures that are stated verbally in the video must also appear in on-screen text for the duration of the relevant claim, to account for users who watch with sound off (which represents a majority of video consumption on these platforms).