Advertising, Fee Disclosure, and Professional Ethics
Advertising, fee disclosure, and professional ethics
This domain tests truthful advertising, fee transparency, and ethical limits on solicitation and referrals. Questions often present an advertisement and ask whether it is deceptive.
Core rules
Maryland prohibits false, deceptive, or misleading advertising and any statement that creates an unjustified expectation of results. An optometrist may advertise services and fees, but the advertisement must be accurate, identify the licensee or practice, and disclose material conditions such as expiration dates, eligibility limits, and whether additional charges apply. Guarantees of cure or 'perfect vision' are misleading. Superiority claims must be verifiable and not deceptive. Fee splitting and paying for patient referrals are prohibited; paying for advertised services is different from paying for referrals. Professional ethics also require honesty in billing, avoiding exploitation of patients, and preserving confidentiality in testimonials.
Worked example
An ad says 'Complete eye exam, $49 - guaranteed 20/20 or your money back.' Reasoning: the price may be advertised, but the guarantee is misleading because visual acuity depends on pathology and refractive limits; 'complete' may also be deceptive if the $49 covers only refraction. The ad should be rewritten to state exactly what is included and avoid an outcome guarantee.
Traps that cost marks
Do not assume a literally true statement cannot be misleading; context and omitted facts matter. Do not hide mandatory charges in fine print. Do not use patient testimonials without valid authorization. Do not assume that a discounted fee is unlawful; deceptive framing is the problem. Do not conflate advertising rules with antitrust law, which permits truthful competitive advertising.