It reads like an accusation of fraud, and for most businesses that get it, it is not. The policy is written for phishing, but legitimate firms land here because Google cannot establish who they are or what they charge. That is a different problem with a different fix.
No cost. A straight answer within one business day on what Google is unable to establish.
Which one applies
This policy is classed as egregious, so it suspends on detection with no warning. What it is actually detecting varies enormously.
The named sub-type is phishing: attempting to obtain personal information such as passwords or card numbers by presenting as a trusted or well-known entity.
Legitimate businesses occasionally trip this without any deception, usually by using a brand name they resell or partner with in a way that implies a relationship they cannot evidence, or by running a login or account page that resembles a larger provider's.
If this is the route, the appeal is about documenting the relationship or removing the implication. It is narrow and it is evidenced rather than argued.
This is where most legitimate service businesses actually sit. Nothing is dishonest. The site simply does not establish the trading entity, the total cost, or the relationships behind the service clearly enough for an automated assessment to resolve.
What an appeal has to demonstrate, in practice: the legal business name, a physical address and a phone number reachable from the site; About and Contact pages that exist and are findable; registration or licence numbers where the category has them; every cost disclosed before commitment, including fees and taxes; refund, privacy and terms pages linked; and any franchise, reseller or partnership relationship documented rather than implied.
None of that changes what the business does. It changes what can be verified about it from outside, which is the only thing Google is assessing.
Not sure which of these Google is seeing?
Get it reviewedBefore you do anything else
The assessment is of the business and its destination, not the ad text. Google states it reviews information from multiple sources including the ad, the website, the accounts and third-party sources. Changing headlines addresses none of that.
An accessible page establishing the legal entity, its address and a contact route is one of the most commonly cited remediation items for this policy. On a thin site it is often the whole finding, and it is a morning's work.
Failure to disclose the full expense a user will bear, before and after purchase, is named conduct under the misrepresentation family this policy sits within. A starting price with material costs added later is precisely the pattern.
Google's own appeal guidance for this policy asks advertisers to share their Google Ads history and specifically references new accounts and recent agency switches. If someone else built the account or the site, that context belongs in the appeal rather than being discovered later.
If one of these has already happened, the case is harder but not over.
Get it reviewedHow this works
Six questions about the notice and what changed in the business before it arrived. Answered within one business day with a read on the likely cause and whether it is worth pursuing.
If it is worth pursuing, read-only access to the account and a look at the site. The real cause is rarely the one the advertiser expects, and it is not visible from outside.
What actually triggered it, what has to change on the account and the site before an appeal can succeed, and the evidence to submit alongside it.
Drafted and submitted once the account is genuinely ready for re-review, then managed through to the decision.
Get it reviewed
The notice you received and what changed in the business before it arrived are usually enough to identify the cause. No account access needed to answer these, and you get a reply within one business day.
Thanks — that's come through.
I'll come back to you shortly.
That didn't send. Something went wrong at our end, not yours.
Email me directly at rob@leftclick.co.nz and I'll pick it up from there.
A reply within one business day, from me. No cost, no obligation, and if it isn't worth pursuing you'll be told that plainly.
Prefer email? rob@leftclick.co.nz
Nineteen years in search marketing. Eight of them running my own agency, sold in 2021. Four years managing seven-figure United States advertising accounts in consumer credit, a category Google scrutinises hardest.
In that industry, compliance, suspensions, disapprovals and verification reviews are a frequent occurrence and a condition of operating.
You deal with me directly, from the first reply through to the decision.
Questions
No. Google decides. What can be committed to is an honest read on whether the case is arguable, a correctly identified root cause, and an appeal built around the actual detection rather than around fairness.
Usually not. The policy's named sub-type is phishing, which is why the notice reads the way it does, but the same policy catches businesses whose identity or pricing cannot be established from their own site. The suspension does not distinguish between them; the appeal has to.
Because legitimacy has to be visible to an automated assessment. A trading name that differs from the legal entity, no physical address, a contact form as the only contact route, and pricing that starts at a figure are all ordinary in professional services and all reduce what can be verified.
You need to disclose what a customer will actually pay before they commit. That is not the same as a price list. Where a fee genuinely depends on scope, the disclosure is of how it is determined and what the floor is.
Google said in November 2025 that 99% of suspensions are resolved within twenty-four hours. Advertisers continue to report far longer waits. Expect days, plan for longer, and do not submit a second appeal while the first is open.
It is necessary rather than sufficient. Google states accounts are reinstated only in compelling circumstances, so the appeal has to demonstrate what was found, what changed, and where to verify it, rather than assert that the business is legitimate.