Start With the Outcome Promise
Google’s AFS compliance penalty-rules table treats “specific and unambiguous promises that cannot be fulfilled” as a severe example. It lists “Promising loans” and “specific promises outside of your control,” including an account offer that says “no credit check!” A card page does not control the issuer’s decision, so “guaranteed approval” is a result promise; “no credit check” is a process claim about another party. Either can be a review flag.
Rewrite the outcome as a process. Say what the reader can review, which party makes the decision, and where the issuer’s terms live. If you cannot verify those steps, omit them rather than invent them. “Review the issuer’s terms before applying” is a direction; “we guarantee approval” is a promise outside your control. Do not replace “no credit check” with “no impact on your score,” which is another outcome claim.
“Free Cash” Needs Conditions
The same penalty table lists “Free or cash offers” as a severe example. Card pages often turn a conditional reward into an unconditional headline. The Google Publisher Policies also prohibit promoting content, products, or services through false, untrue, or deceptive information. Apply two tests: can you substantiate the claim as written, and does the headline omit a condition that changes its meaning? Put verified conditions near the claim and link to the primary terms. Replace “free cash” with a description of what the reader can review, not a promise of what will arrive. Avoid specific amounts unless a current source supports them.
Affiliation and Content Purpose
The misleading-representations section bars misrepresenting or omitting information about the publisher, content creator, content purpose, or the content itself. It also bars falsely implying an association with, or endorsement by, another person, organization, product, or service. “Official bank recommendation” and “exclusive partner channel” are high-risk when the relationship is not real and documented. A reader should be able to tell who produced the page and why particular offers appear. If commercial relationships affect placement, describe them plainly. If no issuer partnership exists, do not use logos or “official” wording that suggests one. Do not hide commercial intent behind “top picks.”
When Offer Boxes Crowd Out Content
Google’s ad-placement restriction says Google ads are not allowed on screens where ads or other paid promotional content occupy more space than publisher content. A comparison page can fail without one oversized ad: stacked offer cards, buttons, and paid placements may fill the first screen while explanation sits below. Count the first viewport as a reader sees it. If offer boxes dominate, reduce their footprint or move substantive guidance into that screen. The test is comparative, not a percentage safe harbor. Because the rule mentions “other paid promotional content,” review paid offer placements alongside ad units. Restricted content may still carry AdSense code, but it is likely to receive less ad volume, and Google may not return ads.
Eligibility Forms and Sensitive Data
The deceptive-behavior section bars attempts to steal personal information or trick users into revealing it, with phishing and social engineering as examples. An eligibility quiz asking for a card number, Social Security number, or similar identifier to “check approval” or “see your limit” is a serious review flag. The page appears to run a credit decision it does not control. Prefer an educational path: explain what the issuer’s application will ask for, then link to the official application. Remove card-number and SSN requests on content pages. If you collect any data, state its purpose and reflect it in the privacy policy. That policy must disclose Google-related collection and third-party ad cookies, web beacons, and IP addresses.
A Triage Table for the Draft
| Credit card page copy or practice | Policy area | What the retrieved policy text says |
|---|
| “No credit check,” “guaranteed approval” | AFS penalty example: impossible concrete promises | “Promises that cannot be fulfilled”; “Promising loans”; “no credit check” example |
| “Free cash,” “cash bonus” | AFS severe example; deceptive behavior | “Free or cash offers”; no deceptive promotion |
| “Official bank recommendation” | Misleading representations | No false association or endorsement |
| Page hides its promotional purpose | Misleading representations | No omitted information about content purpose |
| Eligibility form asks for card number or SSN | Deceptive behavior | No stealing or tricking users out of personal information |
| Offer boxes outweigh explanatory content | Ad layout and paid-content balance | Paid promotional content must not exceed publisher content |
The rows overlap. One draft can fail the promise, deception, and disclosure tests at once. The table is triage, not a score, and it cannot predict enforcement. It also mixes general policy, AFS examples, and layout rules; each has a different scope.
Pre-Publish Checklist
- Replace approval and credit-check outcomes with process language.
- Tie cash or “free” wording to verified conditions.
- Remove “official” or partner claims lacking documentation.
- State who produced the page and why offers appear.
- Keep explanation visible beside offer boxes.
- Remove card-number and SSN requests from content forms.
- Disclose Google-related data and third-party ad cookies in the privacy policy.
Limits and Professional Boundaries
Policies change, and publishers must check the current version; violations can stop ad serving or deactivate an account (policy terms). The retrieved texts are Chinese-language versions, so verify the exact English wording and status on Google’s official pages. Policy compliance is not U.S. consumer-finance law compliance; consult qualified compliance or legal professionals about product terms, disclosures, and promotional relationships. Ad serving, restriction labels, and account decisions remain Google’s to make. No rewrite guarantees approval, ad fill, or an enforcement outcome.
研究の知恵