An Australian online medicinal cannabis prescriber has acknowledged that its website falsely described its entire product range as approved by the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) — and while it has quietly removed the misleading claims, the company is refusing to commit to informing its own patients about the correction.
Medicinal Organic Cannabis Australia (MOCA), which lists a Sydney address on its website, had published a statement from its managing director, Alessandro Sorbello, asserting that the company's "complete product range is approved by the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) and is ready for practitioners to prescribe to patients in Australia." The site also described an "approved medical cannabis product range" covering capsules, sublingual oils, isolates, vape pens and whole cannabis flowers.
In reality, those products — while legal — are unapproved therapeutic goods that have not been assessed by the TGA for safety, quality or effectiveness. The distinction between legal and TGA-approved is a critical one in the medicinal cannabis sector, and the confusion has drawn growing concern from medical experts and regulators alike.
What TGA Approval Actually Means for Medicinal Cannabis
Australia's TGA maintains the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods (ARTG), which lists products that have been formally assessed and approved. Currently, only two cannabis medicines hold that status: Epidyolex, an oral solution prescribed for specific forms of epilepsy, and Sativex, a mouth spray used for spasticity related to multiple sclerosis. Together, these two products represent less than one per cent of all medicinal cannabis products available in Australia.
The remaining products — more than 99 per cent of what is prescribed — are unapproved therapeutic goods. Doctors can still lawfully prescribe them through regulatory pathways such as the Special Access Scheme, but they have not undergone TGA assessment for safety, quality or effectiveness. Describing such products as "TGA-approved" is therefore factually incorrect and potentially misleading to patients seeking trusted medical care.
MOCA Admits Error, Removes Claims — But Stops Short on Patient Communication
When questions were raised about the language on its website, MOCA acknowledged the wording "did not accurately reflect the regulatory status" of its products and confirmed it had been removed. The company also said it was conducting a broader review of its website to ensure all information about its products and their regulatory status was "accurate and consistent with current requirements."
However, when asked whether it would proactively inform patients about the correction, MOCA's response was notably non-committal. The company said it "will consider whether any further communication is appropriate as part of that process" — stopping well short of a clear commitment to transparency with its client base.
Regulator Flags Legal Risk, Industry Scrutiny Grows
The TGA, in response to questions about the matter, said it could not determine on the spot whether the identified claims constituted unlawful advertising, noting that such assessments must be made "on a case-by-case basis and in the context in which it is viewed." However, the regulator was clear that the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989 prohibits advertisements that imply a product has been approved or recommended by a government authority.
"Businesses are responsible for understanding and complying with their regulatory obligations when advertising and supplying therapeutic goods, including advertising through online platforms," a TGA spokesperson said.
The episode is not isolated. Experts have raised broader concerns about the way medicinal cannabis products are described and marketed to patients across the online prescribing industry. Earlier this year, the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners (RACGP) wrote directly to the TGA calling for reforms to how medicinal cannabis is prescribed and regulated — a sign that pressure for tighter oversight is building from within the medical profession itself.
MOCA's case highlights how easily patients navigating the medicinal cannabis space can be misled about a product's regulatory standing, and raises questions about how effectively existing advertising rules are being enforced across an industry that has grown rapidly in recent years.
