Site reputation abuse policy 2027: Google's 28 Aug EEA split and DMA probe

Summary. Google's site reputation abuse policy joined its spam policies on 5 March 2024 and took effect on 5 May 2024. Since 30 August 2026 it works differently depending on where the searcher is. A manual action under what Google now calls its site reputation policy still demotes the affected section in results shown outside the European Economic Area (EEA), but its impact no longer applies to searchers in the 27 EU countries, Iceland, Norway and Liechtenstein. Inside the EEA, Google may instead treat the section as separate from the main domain so it ranks on its own merits, and it says it will lift all earlier EEA manual actions under the policy. The change followed Digital Markets Act (DMA) proceedings that the European Commission opened on 13 November 2025 under Articles 6(5) and 6(12), with an aim of concluding within 12 months. As of 1 November 2026 we found no published decision, preliminary findings or commitments; a Commission spokesperson said it would monitor the new approach. The 28 August rewrite also changed the global text, adding four review factors and three worked examples. For 2027, publishers with UK, US or Indian readers still face full enforcement for those users, so audit every third-party section against the four factors rather than relying on the EEA carve-out.

About this article. This guide is for publishers, affiliate and commerce teams, and the SEO agencies that run partner sections on news and magazine sites. We checked each policy statement, date and number on 1 November 2026 against Google Search Central documentation and its changelog, Search Console Help, the European Commission's press release and DMA pages, the CEDR mediation scheme page and EFTA's EEA page, and used trade press only where no primary source exists, attributed as reported. This is general information, not legal advice, and Google or the Commission can change either side of it at short notice. Researched with AI assistance and reviewed by our editorial team.

What changed on 28 August 2026

On 28 August 2026 Google rewrote the site reputation section of its spam policies, logged the update in its documentation changelog with the reason that it had adjusted enforcement within the EEA, and explained the change in a Search Central blog post. The blog post said the new approach would start on 30 August, and RTÉ News reported the same date on the day of the announcement. Enforcement now depends on where the person searching is located, not on where the publisher is based.

The table below summarises the split, drawn from Google's policy page, its blog post and Search Console Help.

Mediation is a further step in both cases. Google says eligible sites can take disputes to mediation after a reconsideration request, and CEDR's scheme page limits eligibility to business users based in the EEA.

Search Console Help now states, in its entry for this manual action, that the impact does not apply to search results shown to users in the EEA. Search Engine Roundtable called it the first time Google has applied different spam-policy outcomes depending on the searcher's location.

Google did not concede the principle. A Google spokesperson told Search Engine Roundtable that European users dislike parasite SEO and other pay-to-play tactics as much as anyone else, that Google stands by the policy, and that it agreed to change enforcement in Europe to address the Commission's concerns. Commission spokesperson Thomas Regnier, as reported by RTÉ News, welcomed the change, said Google Search would no longer demote press publications merely for hosting third-party content, and said the Commission would monitor how the new policy is applied to make sure it complies with the DMA.

Timeline: from parasite SEO crackdown to EEA carve-out

The dates below come from Google's changelog and blog posts, the Commission's press release, and trade press where marked.

The history matters for 2027. The November 2024 version was the strictest: Google's post said its case reviews showed that no amount of first-party involvement changes the third-party nature of such content. SISTRIX reported on 28 November 2024 that Google had removed well-known examples from its index, with Forbes Advisor's rankings for topics such as pet insurance among them. The August 2026 text moves back towards judging editorial involvement. The human review now asks whether the host contributed enough input, oversight or editing for the content to be fully integrated, and Google says that review applies globally. In our reading, the definition got clearer for everyone, while the penalty got weaker only in the EEA.

What the site reputation policy says now

Google now titles the section site reputation policy in both its spam policies and the Search Console Help entry for the manual action. The policy applies when third-party content is published on a host site mainly to benefit from ranking signals that the host earned with its own first-party content, so that the content ranks better than it would on its own.

Third-party content means content created by an entity separate from the host: the site's users, freelancers, white-label services and people not directly employed by the host. Google states that having third-party content is not, by itself, a problem; it becomes one only when the content is there mainly to ride the host's ranking signals.

The presumption and the human review

Google generally presumes that individual pages, including new ones, match the overall quality of the rest of the domain. If a portion of a site looks out of line with the policy, the site goes to human review, which Google says is rare. The reviewer's goal is to decide whether the host contributed enough input, editorial oversight or contribution for that portion to count as fully integrated with the main site.

The four review factors

Google lists four objective factors, says that no single one is necessary or sufficient on its own, and adds that other evidence can also count.

1. Presentation. Do the graphic design, formatting, typography and UX match the host domain?

1. Quality. Does the page show quality issues that do not appear on the main domain?

1. Authorship. Is there an explicit acknowledgement of ownership or responsibility, and does anything contest it?

1. Duplication. Does the same or near-identical content appear on multiple other sites?

The three worked examples

The policy page now walks through three cases.

• Unlikely to take action: an integrated coupons section. Run with a specialist provider on a different CMS, in a sub-folder linked from the homepage and from article snippets, with categories specific to the publisher, clear commercial disclosure, the publisher named as editorially responsible together with the partner, codes cross-referenced in editorial content and newsletters, and an easy link to report broken offers.

• Likely to take action: an unauthored affiliate article. A globally recognised business publication hosts an article linking to a CBD oil marketplace with no author, no responsible editor, no commercial disclaimer, no route from the main page or thematic sections, and copy duplicated from the marketplace. Google says it would likely act on results shown outside the EEA.

• Unlikely to take action: an authored freelance affiliate article. A news site's new cooking section with affiliate links, written by a named freelancer interviewing guest chefs, with clear statements of editorial responsibility and consistent branding, even though the freelancer also writes for other publications.

Google's list of things that are not inconsistent with the policy still includes wire and press release services, syndicated news, forums and comment sections, columns and opinion pieces, advertorial or native advertising aimed at the publication's own readers, affiliate links that are correctly qualified, and embedded third-party ad units.

The DMA probe: scope, legal basis and status

The Commission's 13 November 2025 press release said its monitoring showed signs that Google was demoting news media and other publishers in search results when their sites carried content from commercial partners, which it described as a common and legitimate way for publishers to earn money from their content.

The table summarises the case from the press release and the Commission's DMA citizens Q&A.

The press release notes that opening proceedings does not prejudge a finding of non-compliance, and that if the Commission does find evidence of a breach it will first send Alphabet preliminary findings. TNW pointed out that the August change covers manual actions, not the algorithmic systems that do most day-to-day ranking, and that the Commission had not said whether it is enough. Commentators split. ITIF argued that weakening the policy in the EEA could let low-quality third-party content benefit from reputable sites' rankings, while EU Today described the result as an awkward territorial compromise in which one search engine applies different consequences inside and outside the EEA.

Keep this case separate from two other Google DMA matters in 2026. Google's EU changes for hotels, airlines and other vertical search, in effect from 8 September 2026, are a different file, as Search Engine Roundtable noted. The Article 6(11) proceedings on sharing search data with rival search engines are also separate; see our explainer on Google's Search click-data sharing from January 2027.

Does the policy still apply in the EU in 2027?

Yes, in a reduced form. The definition, the four factors and the human review apply globally. What no longer applies to EEA searchers is the ranking impact of a manual action. Google can still review the section, notify you, and categorise it as separate from the main domain so that, over time, it ranks without borrowing the domain's signals. Google says the separation does not immediately strip the main site's signals, is not automatic for pages that previously had a manual action, and is not itself used as a ranking signal.

That could move again in 2027 if the Commission asks for more or Google changes its algorithmic handling. Treat the EEA rules as current, not settled.

Compliant vs at-risk third-party content patterns

Lower risk here means a pattern matches the signals in Google's unlikely-to-act examples; it is not a guarantee. At risk means it matches the likely-to-act example or the inconsistent cases Google lists, and can draw a manual action that bites outside the EEA. The table is our reading of Google's policy page, its link spam rules, its link qualification guidance and Search Console Help.

What each group should do in 2027

News and magazine publishers

Inventory every sub-folder, subdomain or template where a partner supplies or writes content, and score each against the four factors. Authorship and duplication deserve most attention, because Google's likely-to-act example fails on both. Then split Search Console performance for each section by country, grouping EEA markets together. A section can look healthy in German or French reports and still be suppressed for UK, US or Indian searchers. Our 2026 SEO guide covers the wider measurement stack; for this policy, the country split is the view you cannot skip.

Coupon and deals sections

Google's coupon example reads like a specification. Put these into the section brief:

• Categories chosen for your audience, not the partner's full catalogue.

• A visible disclosure of the commercial partnership.

• A disclaimer naming your editorial team as responsible, in cooperation with the partner.

• Links from the homepage or a main section, and codes cross-referenced in articles or newsletters.

• A reporting link for broken codes, handled under your normal contact standards.

Google accepts that some of the codes may also be available elsewhere. What its example describes is a curated, jointly edited section, not an uncurated directory that exists only to rank.

Affiliate content and commerce teams

Every affiliate page needs a named author, a responsible editor or editorial-responsibility statement, and copy written for your readers rather than lifted from a merchant feed. Google recommends the sponsored value for paid links and still accepts nofollow. A minimal pattern:

            <a href="https://partner.example/product?aff=123" rel="sponsored">Check price at Partner</a>
<p class="disclosure">We may earn a commission from links on this page. Our editors choose products independently.</p>
          

Our dofollow vs nofollow guide explains how these attributes work in practice.

Partner-content and white-label programmes

Most risk sits in contracts. Before renewing a partner deal in 2027, require:

1. Content created for your site only, with no identical copies on other hosts.

1. Your editorial sign-off before publication and a named editor on each page.

1. Your design system, navigation and disclosure wording.

1. Topics that match your editorial sections.

1. Your right to noindex, move or remove content at short notice.

If a partner's model depends on identical pages across many publishers, the duplication factor counts against you wherever the manual action applies.

Agencies and SEO teams in India serving EU clients

Indian agencies and affiliate operators that run coupon, comparison or white-label sections on European publisher domains should report EEA and non-EEA results separately. The EEA change removes the manual-action demotion for EEA searchers, but not for searchers in the UK, the US, India or Switzerland, so keep recovery work aimed at non-EEA demotions.

Worked example: how much traffic is still exposed

These figures are illustrative assumptions, not measured results. The 90% loss rate and the earnings per click are placeholders; swap in your own.

Scenario A: a German publisher's coupon section. Search Console shows 120,000 Google clicks a month: 84,000 from EEA countries (70%) and 36,000 from outside it (30%, mostly Switzerland, the UK and the US).

• Under a manual action before 30 August 2026, all 120,000 clicks were exposed. If the action removed 90% of them, the loss was 120,000 x 0.9 = 108,000 clicks a month.

• After 30 August 2026, only the 36,000 non-EEA clicks are exposed: 36,000 x 0.9 = 32,400 clicks.

• At an assumed EUR 0.12 earnings per click, monthly exposure falls from EUR 12,960 (108,000 x 0.12) to EUR 3,888 (32,400 x 0.12).

Scenario B: an Indian news site's coupon section. It gets 500,000 Google clicks a month, 2% of them (10,000) from EEA users. With the same 90% assumption, the carve-out protects 9,000 clicks (10,000 x 0.9) while 441,000 (490,000 x 0.9) remain exposed. For this publisher, the August change makes almost no difference.

The carve-out is worth, at most, the EEA share of the affected section's clicks. It can be worth less if Google separates the section and, over time, it ranks without the main domain's signals.

India, UK, US and EEA notes

• India, the US and the UK sit outside the EEA, so manual actions apply in full for searchers there. Treat the August 2026 text as your 2027 compliance standard.

• Switzerland is not part of the EEA Agreement, despite its bilateral agreements with the EU, so Swiss searchers see demotions.

• The EEA is 30 countries: the 27 EU member states plus Iceland, Norway and Liechtenstein. Google ties the outcome to the location of users, and nothing in the policy suggests a country-code domain, hosting location or hreflang changes that.

• Separation inside the EEA replaces the demotion but is not a free pass: over time, Google's systems learn to rank the section independently of the main domain.

If you already have a manual action: the 2027 recovery checklist

1. Read the notice in the Manual actions report, your Search Console messages or the email, and note the patterns of affected pages Google lists.

1. Pick a fix from Google's list: move the content to a new domain (nofollow any links to it and do not redirect), noindex it (without blocking it in robots.txt, or Google cannot see the noindex), redo it as first-party content, or remove it.

1. Avoid the traps. Google warns that moving content to a subdomain or sub-folder may be treated as an attempt to circumvent the policy and lead to broader action, and that moving it to another established site can create the same issue there. In the EEA, not taking these steps is not treated as circumvention in itself.

1. Fix the four factors if you keep the section: bylines, responsibility statements, disclosures, navigation links and original copy.

1. Request review from the Manual actions report. For EEA websites, Google says its new reconsideration process answers within a short timeframe and explains its reasoning in more detail.

1. Escalate if needed. The Google Search Mediation Scheme, run by CEDR and free for business users, is open to EEA-based businesses whose dispute was not resolved through Google's internal appeal, and needs a unique authentication code from Google.

1. Measure by region. Track EEA and non-EEA clicks for the section weekly for at least 90 days.

If the drop does not match a manual action, it may be a core or spam update; see our notes on the June 2026 spam update and the 2027 core update recovery playbook.

How eCorpIT can help

eCorpIT is a Gurugram-based technology organisation, founded in 2021, assessed at CMMI Level 5 and MSME certified, with senior-led engineering teams working across AWS, Microsoft and Google platforms. Our performance marketing team audits third-party sections against Google's four site reputation factors, splits Search Console data into EEA and non-EEA views, and prepares the remediation plan and reconsideration evidence for sections that already hold a manual action. Talk to us at /contact-us/.

Last updated: 1 November 2026.

References

1. What web creators should know about our March 2024 core update and new spam policies, 5 March 2024 — Google Search Central Blog

1. Latest Google Search documentation updates — Google Search Central

1. Update to the Site Reputation Policy, 28 August 2026 — Google Search Central Blog

1. EEA and relations with the EU — European Free Trade Association

1. Spam policies for Google web search: site reputation policy — Google Search Central

1. Commission opens investigation into potential Digital Markets Act breach by Google in demoting media publishers' content in search results (IP/25/2675), 13 November 2025 — European Commission

1. Google changes spam policy in EU to avert antitrust fine, 28 August 2026 — RTÉ News

1. Google updates site reputation abuse (parasite SEO) policy, 28 August 2026 — Search Engine Journal

1. Manual actions report — Search Console Help

1. The Google Search Mediation Scheme (GSMS) — CEDR

1. Google won't enforce its site reputation policy manual actions in Europe, 28 August 2026 — Search Engine Roundtable

1. Updating our site reputation abuse policy, 19 November 2024 — Google Search Central Blog

1. Google expands site reputation abuse enforcement to European regions, 23 January 2025 — Search Engine Roundtable

1. Google offers EU concessions on news-search ranking to head off a fresh DMA fine, 6 May 2026 — TNW

1. Google tightens site reputation abuse policy (and removes Forbes Advisor from the index), 28 November 2024 — SISTRIX

1. Qualify outbound links to Google — Google Search Central

1. EU citizens Q&A — Digital Markets Act, European Commission

1. Google stops demoting EU publishers under its spam policy from Sunday, 28 August 2026 — TNW

1. Google's spam policy change shows the costs of DMA compliance, 3 September 2026 — ITIF

1. Google suspends EEA search demotions as DMA scrutiny bites, 28 August 2026 — EU Today

1. Google says EU DMA changes resulted in largest reduction in search quality, 8 September 2026 — Search Engine Roundtable