Key Legal Considerations For Setting Up A Veterinary Telehealth Company

Veterinary telehealth is growing fast. Pet owners now expect easier access to care, quicker answers, and flexible ways to communicate with veterinarians. Technology has made it possible to offer virtual triage, nutrition guidance, chronic condition monitoring, and post-visit follow-ups without requiring an in-person visit every time.

For founders, this growth creates opportunity. For operators, it also creates legal risk.

Veterinary telehealth sits at the intersection of healthcare regulation, professional licensing rules, and corporate practice restrictions. These rules vary by state and are enforced by veterinary boards that take scope of practice seriously. A platform that ignores these realities can face enforcement actions, contract problems, or forced restructuring just as it begins to scale or raise capital.

At LumaLex Law, we advise veterinary practices, telehealth platforms, and animal health companies on how to build compliant structures that support growth. This guide explains the key legal issues every veterinary telehealth company should address before launching.

The Veterinary-Client-Patient Relationship Is the Foundation

The most important concept in veterinary telehealth is the Veterinary-Client-Patient Relationship, often referred to as the VCPR. Most states require a valid VCPR before a veterinarian may diagnose a condition, prescribe medication, or recommend treatment beyond general guidance.

A VCPR typically requires that:

The veterinarian has sufficient knowledge of the animal
The veterinarian accepts responsibility for medical judgments
The client agrees to follow the veterinarian’s instructions
The veterinarian can provide follow-up care or arrange emergency coverage

How a VCPR may be established varies by state. Some states allow a VCPR to be created through telemedicine. Other states require an initial in-person exam before a VCPR exists.

This distinction drives how a telehealth platform may legally operate. A nationwide platform cannot assume one rule applies everywhere. Workflows, user prompts, and provider actions must reflect state-specific requirements.

Teletriage and Telemedicine Are Not the Same Thing

One of the most common compliance mistakes in veterinary telehealth is blurring the line between teletriage and telemedicine.

Teletriage generally involves high-level guidance. It may include symptom assessment, education, and recommendations to seek in-person care. In many states, teletriage can occur without a VCPR, as long as it avoids diagnosis or treatment.

Telemedicine, by contrast, involves diagnosis, treatment plans, and prescribing. Telemedicine almost always requires a valid VCPR.

Problems arise when platforms describe services as teletriage but allow providers to cross into medical decision-making. This can happen through chat tools, automated prompts, or loose internal guidelines.

A compliant platform must clearly define these service lines and enforce them through technology, training, and documentation.

Corporate Practice of Veterinary Medicine Rules Matter

Many states restrict who may own or control a veterinary medical practice. These rules are often referred to as Corporate Practice of Veterinary Medicine.

In states that enforce these restrictions, non-veterinarians may not:

Own a veterinary practice
Control clinical decision-making
Influence diagnosis or treatment
Share professional fees improperly

This matters because many veterinary telehealth companies are founded by technology entrepreneurs or backed by investors who are not veterinarians.

Ownership and control issues often surface during fundraising or acquisition. Fixing them later can be costly.

The MSO Model Is Common but Must Be Done Correctly

To comply with corporate practice rules, many veterinary telehealth companies use a Management Services Organization structure.

In a compliant MSO model:

A veterinarian-owned entity controls clinical services
Veterinarians retain authority over diagnosis and treatment
A separate MSO provides non-clinical services such as technology, marketing, billing, and administration
The MSO receives a management fee that does not function as fee-splitting

This structure allows non-veterinarian founders and investors to participate in the business without violating practice laws.

However, the MSO arrangement must be carefully drafted. Agreements that give the MSO indirect control over clinical decisions may be challenged by regulators as a sham structure.

At LumaLex Law, we regularly design MSO arrangements for veterinary and animal health businesses with close attention to state-specific rules.

State Licensing Drives Multistate Operations

Veterinarians must generally be licensed in the state where the animal is located, not where the veterinarian or company is based. This rule affects nearly every operational decision for a telehealth platform.

Licensing requirements influence:

Provider hiring and credentialing
Scheduling logic within the platform
Geo-blocking users by state
Marketing language and service availability

Platforms that allow veterinarians to consult across state lines without proper licensing expose themselves to enforcement risk. This is one of the most common and avoidable compliance issues we see.

A scalable telehealth platform must track provider licenses, tie consultations to animal location, and restrict services when necessary.

Supplements, Diets, and Product Recommendations Add Risk

Many veterinary telehealth companies expand beyond consultations and begin offering supplements, custom diets, or wellness products. This can be a valuable revenue stream, but it introduces additional legal challenges.

Problems arise when product recommendations imply diagnosis or treatment without proper oversight. If claims suggest that a product treats or prevents disease, regulators may view it as an unapproved animal drug.

Risk increases when:

Recommendations appear individualized without a valid VCPR
Products are marketed as medical solutions rather than general wellness
Automated tools replace veterinary judgment

Careful use of standardized protocols, disclaimers, and veterinarian review workflows helps reduce this risk.

Data Privacy and Medical Records Still Matter

Veterinary records are not governed by HIPAA, but that does not mean data is unregulated.

Veterinary telehealth platforms must comply with:

State consumer data protection laws
Secure record retention requirements
Reasonable cybersecurity standards

Poor data handling or security incidents can erode trust and draw regulatory attention. Investors also scrutinize data governance during diligence.

A platform should treat veterinary records as sensitive data, even without HIPAA obligations.

Advertising and Marketing Can Create Exposure

Marketing is often where legal issues surface first. Claims that exceed what the platform can legally deliver invite complaints from regulators and veterinary boards.

High-risk claims include:

“24/7 veterinary care” without explaining limitations
“Online prescriptions” in states that require in-person exams
Statements suggesting the platform replaces traditional veterinary visits

Marketing should align with actual services, state rules, and whether a VCPR is required. Clear, accurate descriptions reduce risk and improve credibility.

Industry Standards Influence Enforcement

While not law, guidance from organizations such as the American Veterinary Medical Association influences how regulators view telehealth platforms. Boards often look to these standards when assessing whether a company acted responsibly.

Ignoring industry norms can create problems, even if a platform believes it complies with the letter of the law. Aligning with recognized standards supports defensibility.

Build Compliance Into the Platform From the Start

Veterinary telehealth is not an industry where companies can move fast and fix compliance later. The most successful platforms design compliance into the product itself.

They tend to: