The Advertising Claim and the Testimonial

Advertising rules generally require that communications be truthful, not misleading, and not create unjustified expectations of results. Apply that to each element:

1. 'Correct subluxations that cause asthma, colic, and ear infections.' This asserts a causal treatment claim for conditions whose management is outside routine chiropractic care and for which the evidence does not support a guarantee. Even framed as a subluxation claim, presenting it as correction of the disease is misleading. Pediatric conditions like colic and ear infections are especially sensitive; parents may delay medical care.

2. 'Guaranteed results.' A guarantee of clinical outcome is inherently misleading because results vary and cannot be promised. This is a classic violation.

3. The mother's testimonial. Dr. Reyes is wrong that a patient's words are immune. The licensee controls the advertisement and is responsible for the overall impression it creates. A testimonial implying a causal cure from two visits, placed on a page promising guaranteed results, is misleading in context. Testimonials must be genuine, not misleading, and typically must disclose that results are not typical.

4. 'Board Certified.' This is a misrepresentation of credential. A 40-hour private technique certificate is not a specialty board certification recognized for that title. Using 'Board Certified' without qualification implies a credential he does not hold.

5. Annotated before-and-after X-rays. Arrows drawn on images to imply correction can mislead if the images are not comparable, if positioning differs, or if the annotation implies more change than exists. Radiographic advertising must not misrepresent findings.

His 'generally true in my experience' defense fails because the standard is the impression on the reasonable consumer, not the licensee's anecdotal belief.

Corrections:

• Remove the disease-cure claims and the guarantee. Replace with a factual description of services: examination, diagnosis of subluxation, and chiropractic treatment, with a statement that individual results vary.
• Remove or rewrite the testimonial. If retained, it must be genuine, must not imply a cure, and should carry a clear disclaimer that results are not typical and that chiropractic does not treat all conditions.
• Fix the credential line. State the actual credential, e.g., 'certificate in [technique] from [institute],' or remove 'Board Certified' entirely. Never use a title that implies a board he does not sit on.
• Remove annotated X-rays or replace them with unannotated images accompanied by accurate explanatory text, and only if the comparison is valid.
• Add a scope statement clarifying that chiropractic care is not a substitute for medical evaluation of conditions like asthma or ear infections.

Records to keep:

• A dated archive of the old pages (screenshots with timestamps) and the date each correction was made. This shows prompt remediation.
• Substantiation files for any remaining claim, including the basis for any statement about services.
• Signed patient authorization and release for any testimonial, plus a record of what was said and whether it was edited.
• Provider and credential documentation for every title used.
• A written advertising review checklist applied before any new page or ad goes live.

Prompt correction and a documented compliance process are what turn a complaint into a closed matter rather than an escalating one.

Incentivizing positive reviews undermines the reliability of the testimonial and creates a misleading impression of the practice's outcomes. The analysis:

• Authenticity and bias. A review solicited in exchange for a discount is not an independent account; it is a purchased endorsement. Presenting it as a patient's unbiased experience is misleading to consumers.
• Conditioning on positivity. If the discount is available only for five-star reviews, the practice is effectively suppressing negative feedback and manufacturing a favorable record. That is the most serious version of the problem.
• Platform and consumer-protection exposure. Many review platforms prohibit incentivized reviews, and consumer-protection principles treat undisclosed incentives as deceptive. A licensing board can treat the conduct as misleading advertising even if no platform acts.
• Compounding effect. Combined with the guaranteed-results claim and the cure testimonial, the incentive scheme makes the whole site look engineered to mislead, which supports an inference of intent rather than accident.

Corrective approach: stop the program immediately, do not condition anything on review content, disclose any incentive if one is ever offered, and solicit feedback through a neutral channel that captures negative and positive responses alike. Keep a written policy stating that no discount, gift, or service is contingent on a positive review. Document the termination date of the old program. The exam-tested principle: advertising must reflect genuine patient experience, and the licensee cannot buy the appearance of success.