Insiders in the IVF industry have criticised clinics for using misleading claims and aggressive marketing in the increasingly cut-throat, multi-million dollar sector.

Key points: ACCC currently reviewing dozens of IVF clinics following mounting complaints about transparency

ACCC currently reviewing dozens of IVF clinics following mounting complaints about transparency Evidence of misleading information of IVF clinic websites, says ACCC

Evidence of misleading information of IVF clinic websites, says ACCC Medicare paid $242,187,102 in rebates for 34,000 women last year

Consumer watchdog the ACCC is currently reviewing dozens of IVF clinics amid mounting complaints about the lack of transparency of IVF success rates, with consumers saying they are in the dark about their chances of conceiving at different clinics.

"We certainly have found instances of information being put on the websites and being given to consumers that we think is misleading," ACCC chairman Rod Sims told 7.30.

The ACCC is running a major compliance exercise looking at how Australia's 34 IVF clinics present their success rates.

Mr Sims said of particular concern was comparative advertising, "When clinics say 'we have a much higher success rate than other clinics', and they are just so vague they could mislead consumers."

With Medicare last year paying $242,187,102 in rebates for assisted reproductive technologies, and almost 34,000 women seeking fertility treatment, IVF has become big business.

One of Australia's largest clinics, Genea, advertises itself as giving couples "an almost 40 per cent greater chance of taking home a baby" by comparing its live birth rate per embryo transfer with the average of other Australian clinics, based on the annual ANZARD (Australia & NZ Assisted Reproduction Database) survey of IVF clinics.

Do you know more about this story? Email 7.30syd@your.abc.net.au

Other clinics have complained to the ACCC about Genea's advertising.

President of the Fertility Society of Australia, Professor Michael Chapman, says a simple comparison against an average of clinics does not reflect the complexities of fertility problems treated by other clinics.

"We're concerned about patients' capacity to understand individual data as presented on websites," FSA president Professor Michael Chapman said.

"It's usually simplistic, it's selective and in some cases when comparisons occur with the national database, it makes it unrealistic for the patient and potentially misleading to patients."

Clinics flout FSA guidelines

Last June the FSA issued guidelines to clinics, asking them not to use comparative advertising against the national average from their site.

Genea has flouted these guidelines and defended benchmarking its live birth rate against a national average.

In a statement to 7.30 Genea said: "We do not agree that any difference in pregnancy rates across IVF clinics is solely down to patient difference, eg cause of infertility.

"We have benchmarked ourselves against the publicly available data produced by the ANZARD for many years and have consistently seen higher live birth rates, despite for example the introduction of low cost offerings and the fact that our patient mix consists of a high proportion of people who have undergone treatment unsuccessfully at another clinic.

"Genea believes that it has an ethical obligation to convey this information publicly."

One expert said couples could spend thousands of dollars at low-performing clinics without knowing their chance of success. ( ABC News )

Also potentially misleading, according to Professor Chapman, are success rates presented with caveats that consumers might not understand or properly process.

City Fertility Centre, a large clinic based in Brisbane, claims in an information booklet: "Of the people who do require IVF treatment and have had a baby through City Fertility Centre, 90 per cent fall pregnant in one to three cycles."

"I, as a consumer, would think this clinic has got a 90 per cent success rate," Professor Chapman said.

"That's not actually what they are saying - it's misleading."

In response, the clinic said it was clear the statement was only about those who "have had a baby through City Fertility Centre" and "does not claim 'all patients'."

This stoush reflects a wider debate about the lack of transparency in the IVF industry.

According to ANZARD data, collected from all Australian and New Zealand IVF clinics, there is a huge variation in success rates between different clinics, with the lowest reporting a four per cent live birth rate per fresh IVF cycle, and the highest performing achieving a 30 per cent live birth rate.

But you would not know which clinic was which, because the Fertility Society of Australia keeps the information secret.

Couples unaware of their chances of success

According to IVF pioneer Professor Alan Trounson, this means couples could spend thousands of dollars at a low-performing IVF clinic, without ever knowing their chances of success.

"There are some clinics that don't perform very well, and I think you should be aware of that," Professor Trounson said.

"Some maybe perform very much better because perhaps they're only treating young people, for example.

"But clients for fertility treatment need to be able to use their own nous to figure this out."

Professor Trounson also slammed "aggressive marketing" by IVF clinics, using what he called "sparse information".

"I know they're doing that in many cases because they've got shareholders and they're trying to improve their market in what is maybe a declining number of people as the number of new clinics coming in expands," he said.

ACCC chairman Mr Sims said he agreed.

"There's a very large number of players," he said.

"I think they are, in many cases, quite desperate to get people's business and I think, on the receiving end, the consumers, many of them are quite vulnerable."