Writing for healthcare? The word “may” won’t save you, and neither will a caveat
Following on from the financial services piece, healthcare is the other sector where I’d tell any client, gently but firmly, that the copywriting rules are genuinely different from most other industries. Section 12 of the Advertising Standards Authority’s CAP Code governs marketing for medicines, medical devices, health-related products and beauty products, and it’s considerably more restrictive than most marketers expect (ASA/CAP, Code Section 12). A few of the specifics genuinely surprised me, and I think they’re worth knowing before you write a word of healthcare copy.
Not every condition can even be mentioned
Here’s the one I found most counterintuitive. The ASA doesn’t just regulate what you can claim; it restricts which medical conditions can be referenced in advertising to the general public at all, splitting them into conditions considered acceptable to mention and those judged too serious to be addressed without medical supervision. Their own guidance gives arthritic pain, trouble sleeping, smoking cessation and minor sports injuries as examples of the former.
Arthritis itself, depression, diabetes, infertility and impotence sit in the latter category, conditions that generally cannot be referenced in consumer-facing ads at all, regardless of how the claim is worded (ASA/CAP, “Health conditions”). That’s a distinction most non-specialist copywriters simply don’t know exists, and it means the topic itself, not just the claim about it, can be the problem.
Hedging language doesn’t do what you think it does
This is the finding I’d most want a copywriter to internalise before writing anything health-related. There’s an instinct to soften a claim with words like “may” or “could”, “this therapy may help relieve tension headaches” feels safer to write than a flat assertion. Industry guidance built around CAP’s own position is explicit that this instinct doesn’t work; inserting “may” or similar softening language in front of a health benefit is unlikely to make an otherwise unacceptable claim acceptable (Federation of Holistic Therapists, guidance built on CAP Code advice). The ASA judges the overall impression a claim creates, not the specific hedge word used to soften it. If a reasonable person would come away believing a product or service treats a condition, the caveat generally doesn’t change that assessment.
Even truthful claims can be a problem if they discourage seeing a doctor
There’s a rule in the Code that’s easy to miss because it isn’t really about accuracy at all. Even a claim an advertiser can genuinely substantiate can still breach the rules if it risks discouraging someone from seeking essential medical treatment, unless that treatment is being delivered under the supervision of a suitably qualified health professional (ASA/CAP, “Healthcare: Medicinal claims”).
In other words, the test isn’t purely “is this true”, it’s “could this stop someone getting proper medical help”. That’s a genuinely different bar to clear than most advertising claims, and one worth explaining clearly to any healthcare client who assumes evidence alone is sufficient protection.
The burden of proof sits with you, before you publish
As with financial services, the underlying principle here is that advertisers must hold documentary evidence to substantiate objective claims before submitting an advert for publication, not scramble to find supporting evidence after a complaint arrives (ASA/CAP, “Substantiation for health, beauty and slimming claims”).
For claims the ASA considers “new” or “breakthrough”, the evidence bar rises further still, generally expecting at least one properly controlled human study, ideally double-blind and placebo-controlled, rather than testimonials or anecdotal support.
Enforcement now extends properly into digital
Worth knowing if your healthcare content strategy leans on paid social or search, the ASA has been building out an AI-enhanced monitoring system specifically to catch non-compliant health claims across digital advertising at scale, including paid ads on Google and Meta’s platforms (Lexology, reporting on ASA enforcement trends, 2025).
This isn’t a sector where digital content quietly escapes scrutiny because it’s less formal than a print advert. Organic social posts fall under the same Code if they’re promotional in nature, the practical test being whether the content is controlled by the marketer and promotes a product or service.
What I’d actually advise
None of this should discourage a healthcare or wellness client from writing genuinely engaging, human content; quite the opposite, clear and honest communication tends to build more trust in this sector than vague, over-hedged copy ever does.
What it does mean is that healthcare copy needs proper compliance review as standard, not as an afterthought reserved for anything that “sounds medical”. The conditions you’re allowed to mention, the evidence you’re required to hold before publishing, and the line between informing and discouraging medical treatment are all more specific and less intuitive than most other advertising sectors, and worth getting right from the first draft rather than after a complaint.
Rich Jarrott, the founder of ZenithSpark, has a background in regulated content creation including the vitamin and aesthetics industry and financial services. If you’d like to contact him, use our online form.
Sources: