Can a cosmetic clinic use before-and-after photos?

For a cosmetic clinic, the honest answer is: avoid them. Before-and-after photography is not banned outright in every context, but for the higher-risk non-surgical cosmetic procedures it has become impractical to use lawfully - and for anything involving a prescription injectable it was never available at all.

This changed materially on 2 September 2025, when AHPRA's guidelines on advertising higher-risk non-surgical cosmetic procedures came into force.

What the 2025 guidelines actually require

Where a clinic advertises a higher-risk non-surgical procedure - PRP, thread lifts, skin needling, polynucleotides and similar - any images used must satisfy all of the following:

• Real and unedited. No airbrushing, no filters, no retouching, no misleading edits. A beauty filter on a result photograph is a misleading edit.
• Consistent conditions. Same lighting, same angle, same expression, same distance. Most clinic photography fails here without meaning to.
• A results-may-vary warning on any result or image claim.
• Risk and recovery information presented alongside.
• No under-18 subjects, and no advertising targeted at under-18s.

Meeting every one of those at once, on every image, is why the practical guidance has settled on avoidance. It is not that a compliant before-and-after is impossible. It is that a clinic photographing patients on a phone in a treatment room, months apart, in different light, will almost never produce one - and the failure is invisible until someone complains.

The separate, harder rule for injectables

If the result being shown was produced by a Schedule 4 medicine, the photograph is advertising that medicine. That is prohibited outright, regardless of how good the photography is or whether the caption names anything. A face that visibly changed because of a prescription injectable is an advertisement for it.

This is why a clinic can be scrupulous about captions and still be exposed. The image does the referring.

The testimonial trap sitting next to it

Before-and-after content usually arrives with a quote attached, and that quote is a separate breach. Section 133 of the National Law prohibits testimonials about clinical care in advertising for regulated health services. The 2025 guidelines extend the reasoning explicitly to influencers.

So the common Instagram post - result photograph, patient quote, treatment named - manages to breach three rules at once.

What works instead, and works better

The clinics that give up before-and-afters do not lose their strongest marketing asset. They usually discover they were never using it well.

• Photograph the room, the tray, the device, the hands at work. Texture and atmosphere sell competence. A calm, clean, well-lit clinic photograph does more for a nervous first-timer than a stranger's jawline.
• Write the consultation out in full. What you assess, what you will say honestly, what happens if the answer is no treatment. This is the single highest-converting content on an aesthetic site and it carries no image risk.
• Use experience-only reviews. A Google review about how someone was treated, how the room felt, whether they felt listened to, is lawful. A review describing a clinical outcome is not.
• Show your credentials. Registration, training, years in practice, AHPRA number.

The lower-risk exception

Not every clinic is in the same position. A pure beauty or general skin clinic with no injectables and no higher-risk procedures is governed by Australian Consumer Law rather than the AHPRA cosmetic guidelines. There, before-and-after imagery is available, subject to the ordinary requirement that it is truthful and not misleading - genuinely the same client, genuinely that treatment, no edits that flatter the result.

The mistake we see most often is a skin clinic applying injectable-grade caution to a facial, and quietly losing its best proof in the process. The strictest applicable tier wins, but only the strictest applicable one.

Common questions

Can a cosmetic clinic use before-and-after photos in Australia?

For higher-risk non-surgical procedures, avoid them. Since 2 September 2025 images must be real and unedited, shot in consistent conditions, carry a results-may-vary warning and be accompanied by risk and recovery information. Meeting all of that reliably is impractical for most clinics.

Are before-and-after photos of injectable results ever allowed?

No. If the result was produced by a Schedule 4 prescription medicine, the photograph advertises that medicine, which is prohibited regardless of the caption.

Can I use a before-and-after if the patient consents?

Consent is necessary but not sufficient. It resolves privacy, not advertising law. The image still has to satisfy the editing, conditions, warning and risk-information requirements, and cannot depict a prescription-medicine result at all.

Can a beauty or general skin clinic use them?

Usually yes. With no injectables and no higher-risk procedures, Australian Consumer Law applies rather than the AHPRA cosmetic guidelines, so truthful and non-misleading images of genuine clients are available.

A competitor runs before-and-afters. Why can they?

Most likely nobody has complained yet. Enforcement here is largely complaint-driven and competitors are the most frequent complainants, so a live ad shows only that it has not been reported.

Can I post a patient's quote alongside the photo?

No. Section 133 prohibits testimonials about clinical care in advertising for regulated health services, and the 2025 guidelines extend that to influencers.