What AVMA and State Veterinary Boards Actually Require for Your Website (And What They Don't)

The AVMA Principles of Veterinary Medical Ethics, specifically Section VIII, governs advertising for veterinary professionals. The language often causes more anxiety than it warrants when read carefully.

Section VIII states that advertising by veterinarians is ethical when it is not false, deceptive, or misleading. This is a prohibition on dishonesty—not on visibility. The AVMA explicitly acknowledges that the public benefits from information about veterinary services.

What's Actually Prohibited

• Claims of superiority that cannot be substantiated ("best veterinarian in the region")
• Misleading representations of credentials, specializations, or certifications
• Testimonials that imply designed to outcomes for medical procedures
• Bait-and-switch pricing or deceptive fee representations

What's Generally Permitted

• Descriptions of services, hours, location, and staff qualifications
• Factual statements about credentials and certifications you actually hold
• Educational content about pet health topics
• Client testimonials about service experience (not medical outcome guarantees)
• Pricing information that accurately reflects your fee structure

The AVMA framework exists to protect the public from deception—not to prevent veterinarians from having effective websites. This interpretation is general; consult the current AVMA guidelines and your state board for authoritative guidance.

While AVMA provides ethical guidelines, your state veterinary practice act creates legally enforceable advertising rules. These vary considerably—from states with minimal restrictions to those with detailed prohibitions.

Common State-Level Patterns

Most state veterinary boards address these advertising areas:

• Specialty claims: Many states restrict use of terms like "specialist" to AVMA-recognized board-certified diplomates
• Testimonials: Some states prohibit patient testimonials entirely; others allow them with disclaimers
• Comparative claims: "Better than" or "best" language typically requires substantiation most clinics cannot provide
• Fee advertising: Usually permitted but must be accurate and not misleading about total costs

States With Notable Restrictions

Several states maintain more detailed advertising regulations. California, Texas, and New York, for example, have specific provisions about how credentials must be displayed and what comparative claims require. Other states essentially defer to AVMA principles without additional specificity.

Critical action: Download your state's veterinary practice act and locate the advertising section before finalizing any marketing campaign. Board websites typically provide searchable regulations. When in doubt, many state boards will answer specific compliance questions directly.

State regulations change. This overview reflects general patterns as of publication but is not a substitute for reviewing your current state requirements.

The Federal Trade Commission's truth-in-advertising rules apply to veterinary clinics just as they apply to any business making claims to consumers. For healthcare-adjacent services, these rules carry particular weight.

The Substantiation Standard

FTC requires that advertisers have a "reasonable basis" for claims before making them. For health-related claims, this typically means competent and reliable scientific evidence. For veterinary clinics, this affects:

• Outcome claims: "Our treatment cures 90% of cases" requires clinical data to support it
• Comparative claims: "More effective than other clinics" requires head-to-head evidence
• Endorsements: Testimonials must reflect typical results or include clear disclaimers

Safe Harbor Approaches

Most veterinary websites stay compliant by focusing on:

• Services offered rather than outcomes promised
• Credentials actually held rather than implied expertise
• Client experience testimonials rather than medical outcome claims
• Educational content about conditions rather than cure rates

The FTC rarely pursues small veterinary practices—but state licensing boards may investigate complaints that cite FTC-style violations. The risk is less about federal enforcement and more about competitor or client complaints triggering state board review.

For specific guidance on advertising claims, consult an attorney familiar with FTC regulations and veterinary licensing requirements.

American Animal Hospital Association accreditation represents a genuine differentiator—only about 15% of veterinary practices in North America hold it. But this makes accurate representation essential.

Compliant AAHA Claims

If your practice is currently AAHA-accredited, you may:

• Display the AAHA logo according to their brand guidelines
• State that you are "AAHA-accredited" or an "AAHA-accredited hospital"
• Describe what AAHA accreditation evaluates (facility standards, protocols, etc.)
• Link to AAHA's public verification page

Common Mistakes

• Lapsed accreditation: If your accreditation has expired, continuing to display it constitutes misrepresentation
• Implied accreditation: Phrases like "following AAHA standards" when not accredited can mislead
• Exaggerated claims: AAHA accreditation means meeting their standards—not being "the best" or "top-rated"

AAHA accreditation is valuable precisely because it's verifiable. Potential clients can check the AAHA hospital locator. Any misrepresentation creates immediate credibility damage when discovered, beyond the compliance implications.

If pursuing accreditation, wait until official approval before updating your website. "Pursuing AAHA accreditation" is acceptable only if accurate—and should be updated promptly once status changes.

Compliance doesn't require legal review of every sentence. It requires understanding the principles and building review habits into your content process.

The Three-Question Test

Before publishing any marketing claim, ask:

1. Is it true? Can you document the credential, outcome, or fact being claimed?
2. Is it verifiable? Would a skeptical reviewer (or competitor) be able to confirm it?
3. Is it representative? Does it reflect typical experience, not best-case scenarios?

Content Categories and Risk Levels

Low risk (proceed confidently):

• Service descriptions, hours, location, staff bios with accurate credentials
• Educational articles about pet health conditions
• Photos of your facility and team

Medium risk (review carefully):

• Client testimonials (ensure no implied outcome guarantees)
• Pricing (ensure accuracy and clarity about what's included)
• Credential claims (verify current status)

Higher risk (consider legal review):

• Any comparative claims against competitors
• Medical outcome statistics
• Specialty or board-certification claims

The goal is confident marketing, not paralysis. Most veterinary websites face compliance issues from carelessness, not from having a professional online presence. Build review into your process, and compliance becomes a checkpoint rather than a barrier.

For practices investing in SEO, working with professionals who understand veterinary advertising restrictions ensures your content strategy builds visibility without creating compliance exposure. Explore compliant SEO services for veterinary practices designed around these regulatory frameworks.

Understanding where complaints actually originate helps calibrate your attention. In our experience working with veterinary practices, most compliance issues stem from a few predictable patterns.

Scenario 1: The Specialist Claim

A general practitioner's website says they "specialize in" dermatology or oncology. A board-certified veterinary dermatologist files a complaint with the state board. Many states restrict "specialist" terminology to AVMA-recognized diplomates.

Solution: Use "focused on," "with particular interest in," or "offering services in" rather than "specializing in" unless board-certified in that specialty.

Scenario 2: The Outdated Testimonial

A client testimonial implies their pet was "cured" of a chronic condition. A competitor or dissatisfied client uses this to file a deceptive advertising complaint.

Solution: Review testimonials for implied medical guarantees. Edit or add disclaimers noting individual results vary.

Scenario 3: The Lapsed Credential

An AAHA accreditation lapses during a busy period, but the logo remains on the website. A client who chose the clinic partly based on accreditation discovers it's no longer valid.

Solution: Calendar credential renewal dates and website review dates together. Assign specific responsibility for updating status.

Scenario 4: The Comparative Claim

Website copy states "the most advanced surgical suite in [City]" without substantiation. A competitor with newer equipment challenges the claim.

Solution: Avoid superlatives unless you can document them. Describe your capabilities in concrete terms rather than comparative rankings.

These scenarios are illustrative. Actual regulatory outcomes depend on specific state rules and circumstances.