Can you name a competitor in your practice ads? Comparative advertising rules for healthcare

A new practice opens across the street, or a larger group starts bidding on your name in search. The natural reaction is to answer back: lower prices than the clinic down the road, longer hours than the group on Main Street, a dentist who actually answers the phone. Naming another practice, or pointing at one so clearly that patients know who you mean, is comparative advertising. Federal policy permits it when it is truthful. Federal law lets the other practice sue when it is not, and state licensing rules for health professionals can be stricter than either.

This guide covers ads, web pages and posts that name or identify another practice. Outcome numbers and success rates are covered in our guide to success rates and outcome claims, awards and rankings in our guide to top doctor awards, and the general rules for physician ads in our guide to physician advertising rules. Using another practice’s name as a search keyword is covered in the trademark section of our guide to copyright, music and image rights. For offers to match another practice’s price or accept its coupons, see our guide to price matching and competitor coupons. For claims that tie your practice to a hospital or health system, see our guide to hospital affiliation and partnership claims. For bidding on another practice’s or doctor’s name as a search keyword, see our guide to bidding on competitor names in search ads.

The short answer

Federal policy allows you to name a competitor if the comparison is true, clear and backed by evidence. The Federal Trade Commission says so directly in its policy statement on comparative advertising. That is only one layer. The practice you name can bring its own lawsuit under the Lanham Act, and your state licensing board can apply rules written for health professionals that limit comparisons more tightly than the FTC does. A dentist in Florida, for example, works under a statute that bars ads comparing the quality of their dental services with other available dental services.

So the question is not only whether a comparison is allowed, but which rules apply to your license and your state, and whether you could prove each word of the ad if asked.

What the FTC policy says

The FTC’s Statement in Regard to Comparative Advertising, published at 16 CFR 14.15 in 1979, sets out the agency’s position. The main points:

• Definition. The statement defines comparative advertising as advertising that compares alternative brands on objectively measurable attributes or price, and identifies the other brand by name, illustration or other distinctive information.
• Naming is encouraged. Commission policy encourages naming or referring to competitors, but requires clarity and, if necessary, disclosure to avoid deceiving the consumer.
• Truthful disparagement is permitted. The statement says the Commission has held that disparaging advertising is permissible so long as it is truthful and not deceptive.
• Same standard as other claims. The Commission evaluates comparative ads the same way it evaluates other advertising. The question is whether the ad has a tendency or capacity to be false or deceptive, decided case by case.

The statement was written mainly to stop industry codes and broadcasters from blocking truthful comparisons. It is not a safe harbor. A comparison that misleads is still a deceptive act under Section 5 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 45, the same law that covers each other claim in a practice ad.

The Lanham Act: the practice you name can sue

The FTC is not the only party that can act. Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, codified at 15 U.S.C. 1125(a), gives a civil claim to any person who believes they are or are likely to be damaged by two kinds of statements made in connection with goods or services:

• Confusion about affiliation. Under 1125(a)(1)(A), a word, name or false or misleading representation that is likely to cause confusion or mistake, or to deceive, about a person’s affiliation, connection or association with another person, or about the origin, sponsorship or approval of their services.
• False advertising. Under 1125(a)(1)(B), a false or misleading description or representation of fact in commercial advertising or promotion that misrepresents the nature, characteristics or qualities of your own or another person’s services or commercial activities.

Both halves matter for practices. An ad that says something untrue about the other practice falls under the false advertising half. An ad that uses the other practice’s name in a way that makes patients think the two practices are connected falls under the confusion half, even if each word is literally true.

A separate part of the same section, 1125(c), covers dilution of famous marks. It lists advertising that permits consumers to compare goods or services as a fair use that is not actionable as dilution. That exclusion applies only to famous marks under that subsection. It does not protect a comparison that is false or confusing under 1125(a).

State rules for health professionals

State licensing rules apply to you as a licensee, on top of federal law. The FTC statement speaks to industry codes, broadcasters and self-regulation bodies; a state licensing statute is a separate rule that the board enforces against its own licensees. Three examples, checked October 30, 2026:

• Texas, health professionals generally. Texas Occupations Code 101.201(b)(3) treats as false, misleading or deceptive an ad that compares a health care professional’s services with another health care professional’s services unless the comparison can be factually substantiated.
• Florida, dentists. Florida Statutes 466.019(3) says a dentist’s advertisement may not contain a statement or claim that, among other things, contains laudatory statements about the dentist or group of dentists (paragraph (c)) or relates to the quality of dental services provided as compared to other available dental services (paragraph (e)). The section defines advertisement to include websites and social media.
• Minnesota, dentists. Minnesota Rules 3100.6500 treats as false, fraudulent, misleading or deceptive a public communication that contains material claims of superiority that cannot be substantiated (item E), or that makes only a partial disclosure of relevant facts in context (item B).

Read the three side by side and the gap is clear. Texas allows a comparison you can back with facts. Minnesota allows a superiority claim you can substantiate. Florida bars a quality comparison by a dentist outright, whether or not it can be proved. Physician, chiropractic, med spa and other boards have their own rules, and Florida’s physician rule on implying superiority is quoted in our success rates guide. State rules on comparisons differ, so check the rules for your profession and state before naming anyone.

Kinds of comparison, from lowest to highest risk

Not all comparisons carry the same risk. The FTC definition centers on objectively measurable attributes and price, and those are the easiest to prove. Claims about quality, skill or the other practice’s conduct are the hardest.

• Facts about your own practice, no names. Hours, languages spoken, services offered, accepted plans you have confirmed, parking. No comparison at all, and no one to sue you over it.
• Objective facts that compare. Opening hours or published prices set side by side with another practice’s published hours or prices, on the same date, for the same service. Provable, but it goes stale the day the other practice changes its page.
• Vague superiority. “Better care than the big clinics” or “the gentler choice”. Hard to substantiate, and in Florida dentistry a quality comparison is barred outright.
• Quality or outcome comparisons. “Fewer complications than [Competitor]”. Needs data on both sides measured the same way, and the other side is another practice’s patient records.
• Statements about the other practice’s conduct. “[Competitor] overcharges” or “they rush you out the door”. The highest risk under the Lanham Act false advertising clause, because the other practice can challenge each word.

Price comparisons

Price is the comparison the FTC statement names directly, and the one a patient can check. It is also easy to get wrong in healthcare, because the same procedure code can bundle different things at different practices. A side by side price claim holds up only if each of these is true:

• It compares the same service, with the same items included or excluded.
• Both prices are published or otherwise verifiable, and you keep a dated copy of the other practice’s page.
• It says whether the price is cash pay, before insurance or after insurance.
• It is checked again before each run of the ad, and removed when either price changes.

Florida’s dental statute adds a separate condition: an ad with fee information needs a disclaimer that the fee is a minimum fee only (466.019(3)(g)). Our guides to advertising cash prices and all-in pricing laws cover pricing language more broadly.

Competitor names in search ads

Search ads are where practices meet competitor names head on, because a patient types a practice name into Google. The Google Ads Trademarks policy, checked October 30, 2026, says that when a trademark owner files a complaint, Google will not restrict the use of trademarks as keywords, but will restrict their use in ad text from a direct competitor and in ads that use the trademark in a confusing, deceptive or misleading way. The full list, and what it means for keyword bidding, is in the trademark section of our copyright and image rights guide.

For comparative ads, two points follow. First, an ad headline that names a nearby practice is the use Google’s policy says it will restrict on complaint, whatever the law allows. Second, a keyword the platform allows can still lead to a Lanham Act claim if the ad that appears makes a patient think they are booking with the practice they searched for. Ad text that clearly names your own practice, and does not mention theirs, keeps that risk low.

• Use: your own practice name in the headline, so a patient who searched for another practice sees at once that this is a different one.
• Use: objective facts about your own practice in the description, such as evening hours or the services you offer.
• Avoid: another practice’s name in headline or description text.
• Avoid: wording such as “formerly”, “now part of” or “the new home of” unless a real change of ownership or a real merger makes it true.

Evidence for better, faster and more

Words such as better, faster, cheaper, more experienced and more convenient are comparisons even when no practice is named, because they imply a group being compared against. Texas asks whether the comparison can be factually substantiated, and Minnesota asks whether a superiority claim can be substantiated. Before the ad runs, build a short evidence file:

• The exact claim, word for word, as it will appear.
• Who or what it compares against, named in the file even if not in the ad.
• The source for each side: a dated screenshot, a published price list, a public data set, your own records.
• The date the evidence was gathered and the date it will be checked again.
• The name of the person who approved the claim.

If you cannot fill in the source for the other side, the comparison is a guess. Rewrite it as a fact about your own practice.

Wording that stays true

• Use: “Open until 7 p.m. on weekdays.” Avoid: “Open later than any other dentist in town.”
• Use: “Same-day crowns, made in our office.” Avoid: “Unlike [Competitor], we don’t send your crown to a lab.”
• Use: “Cleaning and exam, 150 dollars cash price, checked [date].” Avoid: “Half the price of the clinic on Main Street.”
• Use: “Each visit is with the same chiropractor.” Avoid: “The big chains rotate you between strangers.”
• Use: “Board certified in dermatology.” Avoid: “The top injector in [city].”

The figures and wording above are invented for illustration. The pattern is the point: state a fact about your own practice that a patient can check, and leave the comparison to the patient.

An illustration

This example is invented. [Practice name], a two-chair dental office, sees a new group practice open nearby with a large ad budget. The owner wants a billboard and search ad that says “Personal care, not a dental factory, unlike [Competitor].”

Run through the questions. The phrase names a competitor. “Dental factory” is a statement about the other practice’s conduct with no objective measure behind it, which puts it in the highest risk group under the Lanham Act. In Florida, it is also a quality comparison barred for dentists under 466.019(3)(e). On Google, the competitor’s name in ad text is the use the trademark policy restricts on complaint.

The rewrite drops the competitor and keeps the fact the owner cares about: “Two chairs. One dentist. You see Dr. [Name] at each visit.” It is true, it is provable, and a patient comparing the two practices can draw their own conclusion.

Checklist before an ad names or points at another practice

• Could a patient tell which practice you mean, even without the name? If so, treat it as a named comparison.
• Is the comparison about something objectively measurable, such as hours or published prices?
• Do you have dated evidence for both sides, in an evidence file?
• Does your state board rule for your profession allow this kind of comparison at all?
• Does the ad clearly name your own practice, so no patient could think the two are connected?
• Is the competitor name kept out of search ad text?
• Is there a date to check the claim again, and a person who will remove it when it stops being true?
• Has a health care attorney reviewed it?

How we help

We build websites, local search, Google Ads and lead generation and AI front desk tools for independent practices and health businesses. For competitive markets, that means search campaigns built around your own name and services, ad copy that states checkable facts about your practice, and a dated record of each claim and its source so it can be reviewed and removed on time. Our tools are built with HIPAA in mind. We confirm in writing what a BAA covers before any patient information flows through a tool, and if it is not covered, we do not route patient information through it. We are not a healthcare provider and we do not give legal or medical advice. For the wider rules, see our healthcare marketing rules hub.

Sources

• 16 CFR 14.15: In regard to comparative advertising (FTC policy statement, 44 FR 47328, August 13, 1979)
• 15 U.S.C. 1125: False designations of origin, false descriptions, and dilution forbidden
• 15 U.S.C. 45: Unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices
• Texas Occupations Code 101.201: False, misleading, or deceptive advertising
• Florida Statutes 466.019: Advertising by dentists
• Minnesota Rules 3100.6500: Communicating deceptive statement or claim
• Google Advertising Policies Help: Trademarks

More in Physician specialty marketing