Imagine you’ve been living with chronic pain for years, and you finally find an online clinic that seems to understand. The website looks professional, the language is reassuring, and right there in black and white it says the company’s entire range of medicinal cannabis products is “approved by the TGA.” You feel a wave of relief. Surely, you think, that means it’s been tested, vetted, and deemed safe by Australia’s medicines regulator. But according to an SBS News investigation, that comforting phrase can be deeply misleading. Medicinal Organic Cannabis Australia, or MOCA, an online prescriber with a Sydney address, has now admitted that its claim was wrong. The company had told prospective patients that its “complete product range is approved by the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) and is ready for practitioners to prescribe.” It also described its range of capsules, sublingual oils, isolates, vape pens, and whole cannabis flowers as “approved.” Yet the TGA does not approve most medicinal cannabis products. In fact, more than 99 per cent of products in this space are not on the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods, meaning they have not been assessed for safety, quality, or effectiveness. MOCA has since removed the wording and said it is reviewing its website. But when asked whether it would tell existing patients about the correction, the company said it “will consider whether any further communication is appropriate.” For people who may have chosen MOCA because of that reassuring phrase, that is a cold and unsettling answer. It raises a bigger question: if an online clinic can make such a claim, how many other patients are being led to believe they’re getting something more rigorously tested than they actually are?
To understand why this matters, it helps to understand what “TGA approved” really means—and what it doesn’t. The TGA’s Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods currently lists only two cannabis medicines as approved: Epidyolex, an oral solution used for specific forms of epilepsy, and Sativex, a mouth spray used for spasticity related to multiple sclerosis. Together, these account for less than one per cent of the medicinal cannabis products available in Australia. Every other product—including the oils, flower, vapes, and capsules sold by clinics like MOCA—is an unapproved therapeutic good. That doesn’t necessarily mean it’s illegal. Doctors can lawfully prescribe some of these unapproved but legal products through regulatory pathways, including the Special Access Scheme and the Authorised Prescriber Scheme, subject to relevant requirements. But “legal” and “approved” are very different things. When a medicine is unapproved, it hasn’t gone through the same rigorous evaluation process that most prescription drugs undergo. There is no independent, government-backed guarantee that it contains exactly what the label says, that it is free from harmful contaminants, or that it actually works for the condition being treated. Medicinal cannabis contains the same primary compounds found in cannabis more broadly, including THC, the main psychoactive compound, and CBD, which does not produce the same intoxicating effects. Their strength, cannabinoid content, and composition can vary between products. For a patient who is desperate for relief, that distinction can be easy to miss—especially when a clinic’s marketing blurs the line. The human consequence is that people may be making health decisions based on a false sense of security, believing that a regulator has looked out for them when, in reality, the system relies heavily on individual doctors and patients to navigate a much more uncertain landscape.
MOCA’s admission is a small but significant step toward honesty. The company acknowledged that its previous wording “did not accurately reflect the regulatory status” of its products. It said it had removed the claim and was reviewing its broader website to ensure information about its products and their regulatory status was “accurate and consistent with current requirements.” That sounds positive on the surface. But the follow-up is where the human element comes in. When SBS News asked whether MOCA would proactively inform patients about the change—people who may have seen the old claim and relied on it—the company did not commit to doing so. It said it “will consider whether any further communication is appropriate as part of that process.” Think about what that means for a patient. You may have read “TGA approved” on the website, felt reassured, paid for a consultation, and started taking a product. Now the company admits that phrase was wrong, but it won’t necessarily tell you. You might never know. That kind of silence erodes trust not only in one clinic, but in the entire medicinal cannabis industry. It also highlights a broader problem: marketing language in this sector can sound more authoritative than the science behind it. Words like “approved” are powerful. They are meant to reassure. When they are used carelessly—or deliberately—they can mislead people at a vulnerable moment in their lives. The company’s decision to “consider” notifying patients feels less like accountability and more like damage control.
The TGA, for its part, responded cautiously. A spokesperson said the regulator could not say whether the specific information identified by the investigation constituted unlawful advertising. Advertising of therapeutic goods, the spokesperson explained, “must undergo robust assessment on a case-by-case basis and in the context in which it is viewed.” That is a careful, legalistic answer. But the TGA also pointed to the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989, which prohibits advertisements that imply a therapeutic good has been approved or recommended by the government or a government authority. In other words, claiming a product is “TGA approved” when it isn’t is at odds with the law. The regulator stressed that businesses are responsible for understanding and complying with their regulatory obligations when advertising and supplying therapeutic goods, including through online platforms. For ordinary people, this can feel frustratingly vague. The rules exist, but enforcement often happens after the fact—after a claim has already been seen by patients, after a decision has already been made, after trust has already been broken. The TGA’s hands-off approach means that patients, not regulators, are often the first line of defense. They are expected to read the fine print, understand the difference between approved and unapproved, and ask the right questions. But when a website says “TGA approved” in bold, how many people will dig deeper? The human reality is that most of us want to trust what we read, especially when it comes from a health provider. We don’t expect to need a law degree to decode whether a medicine is actually safe.
This is not just a problem with one company. Experts have told SBS News that MOCA’s claim is one example of broader concerns about how medicinal cannabis products are described and marketed to patients. Earlier this year, the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners, or RACGP, wrote to the TGA calling for reforms to the way medicinal cannabis is prescribed and regulated. In a submission to a TGA consultation, the college said the current system isn’t working as it should. “It is the view of the RACGP that the absence of ARTG processes leave Australians vulnerable to unsafe products and devices,” the submission said. That is a strong statement from a major medical body. It suggests that the concerns go beyond marketing and into the very structure of how medicinal cannabis is accessed. Because more than 99 per cent of products are unapproved, doctors are essentially prescribing medicines that have not been independently evaluated by the TGA. They may be legal, but they are not backed by the same evidence as medicines on the ARTG. This creates a difficult situation for doctors, who must weigh their patients’ needs against the uncertainty of what they are actually prescribing. And it creates an even harder situation for patients, who may assume that a prescription means a product has been proven to work. The RACGP’s call for reform is a reminder that the issue is systemic. It’s not just about one misleading website; it’s about a framework that allows unapproved products to be marketed and sold in ways that can easily confuse the people who need them most. The college wants changes so that patients are not left vulnerable. That would mean more oversight, clearer information, and perhaps a more honest conversation about what we do and don’t know about these products.
So what does all of this mean for someone considering medicinal cannabis? It means being an active, questioning participant in your own care. It means not assuming that a product is “approved” just because a website or a clinic says so. It means asking your doctor whether the product they are prescribing is on the ARTG, and if not, why not. It means understanding that “unapproved” doesn’t necessarily mean “dangerous,” but it also doesn’t mean “tested.” It means recognizing that the legal pathways for accessing medicinal cannabis—the Special Access Scheme and the Authorised Prescriber Scheme—exist to provide access, not to guarantee safety or effectiveness. The story of MOCA’s misleading claim is ultimately a story about trust. When a company uses the language of government approval to sell a product, it is borrowing credibility it hasn’t earned. And when it refuses to proactively correct the record with the people who relied on that claim, it shows a disregard for the very patients it claims to serve. The good news is that this issue is getting attention. Investigative journalism, medical bodies, and regulators are all starting to ask harder questions. But change will also require patients to be informed and vocal. If you or someone you love is considering medicinal cannabis, take the time to look beyond the marketing. Ask for evidence. Ask about regulatory status. Ask what is known and what is unknown. In a system where most products are unapproved, the most important thing you can do is not let a reassuring phrase do the thinking for you. In brief, the promise of “TGA approved” may be comforting, but the real safety net is a well-informed patient. The truth may be more complicated, but it’s the only thing that can truly help you make a safe choice.