Published 9 August 2026

For doctors, the boundary between a personal online account and a professional presence is becoming increasingly difficult to maintain.

A post made from a private account can be copied, shared and viewed by patients, colleagues or journalists. A short TikTok video can be interpreted as clinical advice. An AI-generated response can contain confident but inaccurate medical information. In each case, the GMC is likely to focus on the doctor’s conduct and its impact: not on whether the content was intended as a joke, posted outside working hours or drafted by software.

The GMC’s guidance on using social media as a medical professional remains central in 2025–26. The position is straightforward: the same professional standards apply online as offline.

What has changed in 2025–26?

There is not yet a standalone GMC “AI code” that creates a separate category of fitness to practise allegation. Instead, AI use is being assessed through existing duties under Good medical practice, including:

• protecting patient confidentiality;
• communicating accurately and honestly;
• maintaining public trust;
• using professional judgement;
• recognising and managing risks to patient safety; and
• being accountable for decisions and communications.

The GMC’s learning materials on artificial intelligence and innovative technologies make clear that digital tools do not replace a doctor’s professional responsibility.

That distinction is important. A doctor cannot simply argue that “the AI gave me the answer” if an unsafe recommendation is published, acted upon or provided to a patient. Equally, a doctor cannot rely on privacy settings, an anonymous username or the fact that a post was made in a personal capacity if the content undermines professional standards.

Real cases show how online conduct can escalate

The GMC and Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service have dealt with a growing range of online-conduct allegations. The outcomes vary significantly, but several themes are clear.

Offensive tweets and discriminatory content

Published regulatory commentary has reported cases involving doctors who posted offensive religious, political or discriminatory views on Twitter/X, alongside derogatory comments about patients or colleagues. In one case discussed by Medical Protection, the tribunal found the doctor’s fitness to practise impaired and imposed a three-month suspension.

Other cases have resulted in formal warnings, while some investigations have closed with no action. The difference often turns on the content’s seriousness, context, persistence, reach, evidence of insight and the doctor’s response once concerns are raised.

The GMC’s own social media case study describes a doctor who posted inappropriate material about work and colleagues. The case resulted in a six-month suspension, described as necessary to signal the seriousness of the behaviour and its effect on public trust.

These cases demonstrate that “bringing the profession into disrepute” is not limited to criminal convictions or conduct occurring in a clinical setting. In the digital age, it may include online behaviour that causes a reasonable member of the public to question whether a doctor remains worthy of trust.

Negative reviews and public criticism of colleagues

A negative review of a colleague is not automatically a GMC matter. Doctors remain entitled to raise legitimate concerns and express professional opinions.

The risk arises when criticism becomes a public personal attack, especially where it:

• identifies a named doctor or team;
• makes unsubstantiated allegations of incompetence or dishonesty;
• reveals confidential workplace or patient information;
• encourages patients to distrust a colleague; or
• appears retaliatory, discriminatory or harassing.

The GMC expects concerns about patient safety or professional conduct to be raised through appropriate channels. A public “name and shame” campaign may create a separate regulatory problem, even if the doctor originally believed they were defending patients.

There is an important evidential distinction here. Publicly available decisions do not support the blanket claim that every negative online review has triggered a GMC referral. However, the GMC’s guidance makes clear why hostile public criticism can become relevant: doctors must treat colleagues fairly and respectfully, and must consider the effect of their communications on trust in healthcare professionals.

Clinical content on TikTok and other video platforms

The GMC’s rules are platform-neutral. TikTok, Instagram Reels, YouTube, podcasts, blogs and X are all capable of carrying professional communications.

The published cases are not always described as TikTok cases specifically. However, the principles can be seen in cases involving online videos and medical blogs.

In the case of Dr Samuel White, online videos and posts concerning COVID-19, vaccines, masks and testing led to GMC action and interim restrictions. The High Court later set aside the restrictions because the tribunal had not properly balanced the doctor’s Article 10 right to freedom of expression against the relevant patient-safety and public-trust concerns.

The case does not mean that doctors are free to publish any clinical opinion without consequence. It shows that freedom of expression must be balanced carefully against professional obligations.

Similarly, in the case involving Dr Nergui, the High Court found that an earlier tribunal had taken an unduly lenient approach to medical-related content published online. The case illustrates that online advice can be treated as professional activity even where it takes place outside a conventional consultation.

Doctors creating TikTok content should therefore consider:

• whether a viewer could interpret the video as personalised medical advice;
• whether the information is accurate, current and properly qualified;
• whether risks and limitations have been explained;
• whether a patient, colleague or workplace could be identified;
• whether the content trivialises a serious condition; and
• whether sponsorship, commercial interests or product promotion are disclosed.

A disclaimer such as “this is not medical advice” may be helpful, but it will not cure misleading content, a confidentiality breach or inappropriate professional conduct.

AI-generated medical advice: the next regulatory risk

As of August 2026, there is no widely reported UK GMC tribunal decision in which AI-generated medical advice itself is the central allegation. That does not make the risk theoretical.

AI tools can generate:

• inaccurate diagnoses;
• incorrect drug or dosage information;
• fabricated citations;
• overconfident answers;
• incomplete explanations of risk; and
• advice that is inappropriate for a particular patient.

If a doctor publishes or communicates that output without proper checking, the communication remains the doctor’s responsibility.

The risk is particularly high where a doctor:

1. enters identifiable patient information into a public AI system;
2. uses AI to draft a response to an individual asking for medical advice online;
3. submits AI-generated reflections or appraisal material without checking its accuracy;
4. relies on AI-generated references or clinical guidance; or
5. uses AI to produce certificates, reports or other documents with clinical or legal consequences.

The GMC is likely to ask the same questions it would ask in any other case: Was the doctor’s conduct reasonable? Was professional judgement exercised? Were the limitations of the tool understood? Was patient information protected? Did the doctor respond honestly and demonstrate insight when the concern was raised?

Practical dos and don’ts for doctors

Do

• Treat every online communication as capable of becoming public.
• Check clinical claims against reliable, current sources before publishing.
• Keep professional and personal accounts separate where possible, while recognising that separation is not absolute.
• Use formal internal procedures to raise concerns about colleagues or patient safety.
• Obtain specific, informed consent before using patient images or case material for educational content.
• Declare commercial interests, sponsorships and relevant professional affiliations.
• Follow your employer’s information-governance and AI policies.
• Keep a record of the checks undertaken before publishing significant clinical content.

Don’t

• Upload identifiable patient, colleague or complaint information into a public AI tool.
• Provide personalised diagnosis or treatment recommendations through social-media messages.
• Assume a private group, disappearing message or anonymous account is risk-free.
• Post in anger about patients, colleagues, employers or professional groups.
• Publish AI output without checking its accuracy, tone and evidential basis.
• Delete or alter potentially relevant material once you know a GMC concern may be raised.
• Respond publicly to a complaint or investigation before taking advice.

What to do if online conduct triggers a GMC investigation

If the GMC contacts you about a tweet, video, review, blog post or AI-assisted communication, take the issue seriously from the beginning.

1. Preserve the evidence

Keep copies of the original post, surrounding conversation, account settings, direct messages and any later edits. Do not assume that deleting material will remove it from circulation. Screenshots may not show the full context, so preserve links, dates and metadata where possible.

2. Pause further commentary

Avoid arguing with complainants online, contacting witnesses informally or posting explanations that may later conflict with your formal account. Do not discuss confidential investigation material in public or with colleagues who do not need to know.

3. Obtain specialist advice before responding

A GMC response is not a routine customer-service reply. It may shape whether the matter is closed, referred for further investigation or escalated to an Interim Orders Tribunal or Medical Practitioners Tribunal.

Specialist GMC defense solicitors and medical license defense solicitors can help you assess the allegation, preserve your position, prepare a proportionate response and address related employment, criminal or civil issues. Early advice is particularly important where the allegation involves discrimination, confidentiality, alleged misinformation, patient boundaries or possible dishonesty.

The central lesson

Doctors do not lose their right to use social media or express legitimate views. But the digital setting does not remove professional accountability.

The safest approach is to assume that online conduct may be examined in the same way as conduct in the clinic: for accuracy, respect, confidentiality, judgement and its effect on public trust. AI may assist with drafting or administration, but it cannot take responsibility for a doctor’s decisions.

If you are facing a GMC concern relating to social media, online content or AI use, Tyndel Solicitors’ doctors’ defence team can advise on the investigation and help protect your registration and professional reputation.