This case is important because the respondent in liquidation was not the clinic and not the media outlet. It was alleged to have provided marketing services. That matters for agencies, PR teams, copywriters, affiliate marketers and health-product businesses that assume regulatory risk sits only with the product owner.
The Court did not decide final liability in this judgment. It decided whether the regulator could continue the civil penalty proceeding against a company in liquidation. The Court granted leave because the alleged contraventions were serious, raised public-health and safety issues, and involved a marketing services company in a position that made the deterrence point direct.
The Court also accepted that declarations and penalties can serve a public purpose even if the company in liquidation may not be able to pay penalties without further leave.
For small businesses, the lesson is to review therapeutic goods marketing before publication, not after a regulator letter. Medical cannabis, supplements, devices, health products and wellness claims can trigger therapeutic goods advertising rules. Agencies should also make sure their contracts, approval workflows and copy clearance records show who checked restricted or prohibited representations.