The Committee of Advertising Practice publishes a specific list of conditions osteopaths may claim to treat. Anything outside that list requires robust clinical evidence you will almost certainly not have. And because GOsC Standard D1 requires your advertising to comply with the ASA, a breach of the advertising code is simultaneously a breach of your professional standards.
That second point is the one most osteopaths have never been told, and it is why this is a fitness-to-practise question rather than a marketing one.
What conditions can you advertise treating?
CAP's advice for osteopathy sets out the conditions it accepts, and the list has been stable since the ASA and GOsC issued joint guidance in December 2016 to more than 4,800 registered osteopaths.
Broadly, it covers:
- General acute and chronic backache, back pain and lumbago
- Uncomplicated mechanical neck pain
- Sciatica and neuralgia
- Joint pains, including hip and knee pain from osteoarthritis
- Arthritic pain and rheumatic pain
- Frozen shoulder, shoulder and elbow pain, tennis elbow
- Muscle spasms and cramp
- Fibromyalgia
- Cervicogenic headache and migraine prevention
- Minor sports injuries
- Generalised aches and pains
- Digestion problems
- Circulatory problems
- Inability to relax, and tension
Two things about that list matter more than its contents.
It is closed, not illustrative. A condition that is clinically adjacent to one on the list is not covered by it.
Some entries carry qualifying words that are doing real work. "Minor sports injuries" is acceptable; "sports injuries" is not. "Uncomplicated mechanical neck pain" is acceptable; neck pain from other causes is a different claim. Dropping the qualifier changes the claim into one you cannot substantiate.
Because the wording is precise and CAP's guidance is updated, check the current CAP advice page before rewriting your website rather than relying on any summary, including this one.
What happens if you go outside it?
The ASA has upheld complaints against named osteopathic practices, and the rulings are public and permanent.
Kane and Ross Clinics Ltd, ruling reference A22-1141110, upheld on 6 July 2022. The complaint concerned claims about treating babies, including for constipation, infections, poor latching and scoliosis. The ASA found breaches of CAP rules 3.1 and 3.7, on misleading advertising and substantiation, and rule 12.1.
Nicholas Handoll, trading as Hereford Clinic of Osteopathy, upheld on 26 July 2017. The practice was subsequently added to the ASA's list of non-compliant online advertisers on 14 August 2017, which is a public naming rather than a fine.
Two further cases involving paediatric claims, the Osteopathic Centre for Children in March 2022 and Eastbourne Osteopaths in March 2023, were resolved informally.
The pattern is visible: claims about treating infants and children attract complaints, because that is where the evidence base is weakest and the public interest sharpest.
Why is this a regulatory matter and not just an advertising one?
Because GOsC Osteopathic Practice Standard D1 requires that your advertising is legal, decent, honest and truthful as defined by the ASA.
That single sentence links the two systems. An advertising breach is not only an ASA matter. It is capable of amounting to a breach of the standards you are registered against, which puts it in fitness-to-practise territory.
So the cost of an overclaim is not a takedown request. It is a public ruling with your practice named, a listing you cannot remove, and a regulatory exposure on top.
What else catches osteopaths out?
Three things beyond the condition list.
The "Dr" title. An osteopath without a medical qualification should not use the title in a way that implies they are a medical doctor. If you hold a doctorate, the safe approach is to make its nature explicit rather than leaving the reader to assume.
Testimonials are not substantiation. A patient saying your treatment cured their migraines does not evidence that claim. CAP is explicit that testimonials cannot substantiate efficacy, and a testimonial making a claim you could not make yourself is treated as though you made it. That includes reviews you republish on your own site.
Claims made by somebody else on your behalf. Your web designer's copy, your directory profile, your social posts and your paid ads are all yours for these purposes.
What should you actually do?
Five practical steps.
- Audit every page against the list, including service pages, your homepage and any landing pages an agency built
- Reinstate the qualifying words. "Minor sports injuries", not "sports injuries". These get edited out for readability and they are load-bearing
- Review your testimonials for condition claims you could not make directly
- Check your directory listings, which are frequently older than your website and rarely reviewed
- Use CAP's Copy Advice service before publishing anything you are unsure about. It is free, confidential, and considerably cheaper than a ruling
That last one is genuinely under-used. CAP will tell you in advance whether wording is acceptable, which removes the guesswork entirely.
What you can say instead
The restriction is on claiming to treat conditions, not on describing what you do.
You can describe your training, your registration, your approach, the techniques you use, what happens in an appointment, and how long a course of care typically runs. You can name the conditions on the list. You can explain that osteopathy is a regulated profession and what that means, which is a genuine differentiator against unregulated competitors.
What you cannot do is promise outcomes for conditions the evidence does not support, however sincerely you believe in them.
Our guide to what chiropractors can claim covers the parallel position, which is similar in structure and different in one commercially significant detail.
This is general information about advertising rules, not legal advice. The CAP position is updated and the accepted conditions list should be checked in its current form before you rely on it. Consider CAP's free Copy Advice service before publishing.
Sources: ASA/CAP advice, osteopathy · ASA ruling, Kane and Ross Clinics Ltd, 6 July 2022 · GOsC, advertising guidance
Related: What can chiropractors claim in advertising? · Practice management software for osteopaths · Is my practice VAT exempt?
