Aipedia: Osteopaths and chiropractors
AI can draft website and social media copy quickly, but you are responsible for every health claim it makes. Unsupported treatment claims can lead to advertising complaints and to regulatory scrutiny of your honesty and integrity.
Part of: AI in osteopaths and chiropractors
In short
Generative AI tools are good at fluent, confident marketing copy and poor at knowing which health claims can be supported. Ask for a blog post about back pain and you may get claims about conditions treated, outcomes and speed of recovery that you could not evidence. OPS D1 requires osteopaths to act with honesty and integrity, and the GOsC says responsibility for AI use cannot be outsourced. Misleading content can draw complaints to the advertising regulator and to your professional regulator. PI may not respond to every consequence, so checking copy before publication matters.
Typical uses include drafting website service pages, blog posts on common conditions, social media captions, email newsletters, review responses and paid search adverts. Some practitioners ask a generative AI chatbot to "optimise" an existing page, which can quietly add stronger claims. Others use AI image tools for illustrations. The output reads well and is published quickly, often without anyone checking each sentence against the evidence.
AI-written copy tends to go wrong in a few places:
For osteopaths, OPS D1 says "You must act with honesty and integrity in your professional practice", and the GOsC interim AI guidance links AI use to that standard. The guidance also warns that AI can produce inaccurate output presented as fact and that osteopaths remain responsible for what they use. Chiropractors are subject to the GCC Code, which applies to how they present their services whatever tool wrote the words. Both professions are also subject to general advertising rules on misleading claims, which apply to websites and social media as much as to printed adverts.
Illustrative scenario: a clinic asks a generative AI chatbot to write a series of social media posts about headaches and children's health. The posts state that treatment can resolve a range of conditions and cite a study that turns out not to exist. A member of the public complains to the advertising regulator and also to the practitioner's professional regulator. The practitioner has to remove the content, respond to both bodies and explain why the claims were published without checking.
Smaller problems are more common. AI-rewritten service pages drift from "may help with" to "treats". Blog posts copied across several clinic sites repeat the same unsupported claim many times. Review responses generated by AI confirm details of a patient's treatment in public, which is a confidentiality problem under OPS D5 as well as a marketing one. Paid adverts generated in bulk are rarely read in full by anyone before they go live.
The statutory indemnity under the GOsC and GCC rules is aimed at claims for negligent professional services, injury and property damage. An advertising complaint is not usually a claim for damages, and fines, regulatory sanctions and the cost of correcting adverts are commonly outside PI. Some policies include cover for legal costs in regulatory proceedings, subject to the terms. If a patient is harmed after relying on a marketing claim, the treatment claim would usually be dealt with in the normal way, but the marketing will feature in the evidence. Policies can also exclude or limit cover for deliberate or dishonest acts.
Practical controls include:
Related: AI chatbots and online booking, AI-drafted patient leaflets, GOsC and GCC on AI, AI exclusions in insurance policies and the hub.
Apex arranges PI for osteopaths and chiropractors and can explain whether your policy includes legal costs for regulatory proceedings. See chiropractors' PI and osteopaths' PI.
Yes, as a drafting aid. You remain responsible for every claim, so check each statement about conditions, outcomes and evidence before publishing, and keep a record of who approved the content.
Usually not in full. Advertising complaints are not normally claims for damages, and fines or the cost of correcting adverts are commonly excluded. Some policies cover legal costs in regulatory proceedings, subject to the terms, so check yours.
Be careful. An AI-drafted reply that confirms a patient attended or discusses their treatment can breach confidentiality. Keep replies general, do not confirm anyone is a patient, and read each reply before it is posted.
It can be. For osteopaths, OPS D1 requires honesty and integrity, and the GOsC links AI use to that standard. Chiropractors are subject to the GCC Code. Misleading claims can be raised with the regulator whoever drafted them.
Tell us about your firm and the work you do. A broker will review how your current PI treats AI-assisted work, or arrange new cover. No fee for a quote. Or call 0117 325 0027.
Start a PI quote Request a callbackApex Insurance Brokers Limited is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority. Registered in England and Wales, company number 07014570. This page is general information about how AI is used in the profession and how insurance may respond. It is not legal, regulatory or insurance advice on your circumstances, and it does not guarantee that cover will be available or on what terms.