Patient image in advertising: the law is not new, but the market is still 'learning from fines
Healthcare advertisements today are still full of patient images, personal stories and before-and-after shots. On social networks, this has become an almost natural way of marketing - sharing customer experiences, changes, feedback or even recommendations. However, this is precisely the kind of communication that is in direct conflict with Article 15(1) of the Law on Advertising, which lays down strict prohibitions on the advertising of medical and healthcare services. Although most clinics are acting in good faith and want to show a real result, the law leaves no room for compromise in this area: the image of the patient, the patient's name, the patient's story or the doctor's recommendation are not allowed in advertising.
Jonas Zaronskis, partner at AVOCAD, says that advertising of healthcare and medical services is one of the most sensitive areas of advertising. "Unlike in the commodity market, it is about human health, dignity and the often fragile state of being. That is why the legislator has chosen to regulate it extremely strictly. Article 15(1) of the Law on Advertising prohibits the use of a patient's name, surname, image and the use of recommendations from healthcare institutions, specialists or their professional organisations," notes Jonas Zaronskis.
According to the lawyer, this provision came about by accident - it aims to protect public health, patient privacy and prevent misleading. Patient stories, before-and-after photos or doctors' recommendations have a very strong emotional impact, which can give the unjustified impression that the outcome will always be the same, regardless of individual circumstances. Restriction primarily protects the consumer from false expectations and emotional pressure to choose a service - particularly important where it is not only about aesthetics, but also about long-term self-confidence and a healthy relationship with one's body.
The amendments to the law have further strengthened these protections. The wording of the prohibition has been extended to cover not only traditional advertising but also digital marketing, social networks and opinion-forming content. "This was done to pre-empt new, visually impactful forms of advertising that can be even more powerful than traditional print or TV media. In other words, the legislator has chosen a principle: it is better to impose strict limits at the outset than to allow abusive precedents in a sensitive area such as health", says Mr Zaronski.
Warnings and fines: real consequences for clinics
According to the lawyer, practice shows that supervision has become stricter in recent years and fines have become significant. For example, in 2023, UAB Vitkus was fined €20,000 for using a patient's image in an advertisement. In 2024, the court upheld this sanction and found that the advertisement was specifically related to healthcare services and that the prohibition should therefore apply in full. In the same year, the Estetus clinic was fined an even higher amount of €40,000 for the mass use of patient images in its advertising. It can be seen that the bar for these amounts is high and the courts do not consider them excessive.
In addition, in practice, the content of an opinion leader speaking from the patient's perspective or sharing personal experiences in return for a reward or a discount is generally considered prohibited. In contrast, more neutral information about the range of services or facilities does not necessarily violate the law. Although no opinion formers have yet been sanctioned, their activities are being actively monitored, and it is likely that in the future, controls may extend to this channel of communication.
Warnings and fines are a real threat to trademarks. Brands that fail to comply with the provisions of the Advertising Law face real consequences. Even a seemingly innocent social network post can become a serious infringement. The SACP has the power to issue warnings and impose fines of various amounts. Official warnings can be issued first - for example, if a clinic uses a patient's photo or testimonial in its advertising. However, a fine of up to 3% of the annual revenue, up to a maximum of €100,000, can also be imposed for a first offence. If the infringements are repeated or considered serious, the penalties are even higher - up to 6% of annual revenue, but not more than €200,000. In addition, failure to comply with the orders of the SCAT can result in additional fines of up to €289 per day of delay for clinics and fines of between €289 and €2,896 for failure to provide information necessary for the investigation.
Where does the patient's image end and the advertising risk begin?
However, according to Jonas Zaronskis, a partner at AVOCAD, such a strict provision is debatable. Clinics have a very different understanding of what constitutes a "patient image": is it just a recognisable face and name, or also anonymised fragments such as a silhouette or body part? There are also different views on the question of which services fall under the category of health care and which under the category of cosmetic services. Do all aesthetic procedures really need to be regulated in the same strict way? This raises legal risks and uncertainties.
Another issue, according to the lawyer, is the proportionality of sanctions. A fine of twenty or forty thousand euros can be a critical financial burden for a smaller clinic, even though the infringement may not have been committed with malicious intent, but rather with unclear limits. Such penalties sometimes seem like a cannon shot at a sparrow when a clearer explanation or preventive measures would have sufficed. "Unfortunately, due to limited institutional resources, the State Consumer Rights Protection Service is more likely to punish than to advise, so clinics learn from sanctions rather than from prior guidance," Zaronskis observes.
In the light of these tensions, it would be rational to review the regulation itself. First of all, the notion of patient image should be defined more precisely, i.e. whether anonymised excerpts should be considered as prohibited. There is also a need for a clearer distinction between health care services and cosmetic services, as the current application is often extremely broad. "In addition, there is a need for detailed guidelines with permitted and non-permitted examples and clear criteria for communication by opinion leaders. It is important to strengthen the counselling function so that prevention is more effective than mere punishment," notes Mr Zaronski.
In conclusion, Article 15(1) of the Law on Advertising reasonably protects the patient, public health and consumer interests. However, according to lawyer Jonas Zaronskis, in the context of modern marketing, this provision sometimes acts as a hammer where a precise surgical tool would be needed.
"The value chain is right, but the application is sometimes too broad and the sanctions are hardly proportionate to smaller players. The solution should therefore not be to relax protections, but to clarify definitions, develop clear guidelines and strengthen advisory practices. For the time being, the safest option for clinics is to adopt a conservative model: avoiding patient images, not using the patient's perspective and not relying on recommendations from doctors or institutions. This helps to avoid fines, but clearer regulation is needed in the future so that the sector can work to ensure both consumer protection and fair competition," the lawyer notes.