The short answer: a promise you cannot control
Google publisher policy does not ban credit-card pages, comparison tables or card reviews. It reviews what the page promises. The documented test is whether a sentence makes a specific promise outside the publisher's control. Policy materials put a savings-account example offering no credit check in the egregious bucket, not the ordinary one. Apply that test to card copy: a page cannot guarantee an issuer's approval, card issuance or bonus payout. Final approval, limits and rates are controlled by the issuer. Google policy compliance also differs from US federal credit advertising law; this article covers the publisher side only.
Why one sentence can outweigh five minor issues
Enforcement is asymmetric. Five normal policy violations equal one strike, while one egregious violation equals one strike by itself. That arithmetic changes editorial priorities: several vague claims may be less exposed than one sharply worded promise.
| Violation bucket | Documented examples | Enforcement weight |
|---|
| Egregious | A specific promise outside your control: a savings-account offer with no credit check. Also: free or cash offers, unreasonably cheap offers, promising loans. | 1 egregious violation = 1 strike |
| Normal | Vague promises such as education being affordable; promised information, such as a top-doctor list, that is not delivered. | 5 policy violations = 1 strike |
The table records buckets, not a score for every sentence. A claim that reads like a stronger version of an egregious example should be escalated, not averaged into the normal column.
Claim-by-claim triage for a card page
- Free or cash offers. These sit in the egregious column. A page headlining a free cash bonus is making an offer-shaped promise. No card-specific example appears, so a condition does not automatically make it normal. Pull it or escalate it.
- No credit check. This is directly documented as egregious in the savings example. It is not a product ban, but it promises a verification step the publisher cannot control. Remove or escalate it.
- Guaranteed approval. The retrieved examples do not name it. That silence is not clearance. It commits the page to an issuer's credit decision, the same control problem as the egregious example, so do not label it normal; escalate it.
- Unreasonably cheap offers. These are named as egregious. Ask whether the page presents an offer it cannot control or deliver. An implausible price claim belongs in the escalation pile.
- Vague puffery. A slogan such as cards being affordable is a normal-level pattern. It still adds to the five-to-one arithmetic, so supportable wording is better than filler.
- Promised but undelivered information. The documented normal-level pattern is promised specific information, such as a nearby top-doctor list, that never appears. A card-page call to see a list of top cards fits that pattern when no real list exists.
- Deceptive framing. Content norms prohibit false, deceptive or misleading promotion, including get-rich-quick framing and false statements about the publisher, content or associations. Those rules are not a third bucket; the table cannot downgrade them.
The related-search unit has its own wording rules
Editors often review the article and miss the related-search or PIF unit. That unit must not use misleading wording or elements designed to pull clicks. Policy materials list phrases such as “search now for the best offer” and “click here”, plus arrows and similar click-directing objects. Placement also matters: the unit must not become the page's obvious focal point; that issue appears in the egregious column.
The query mechanics add a second check. The related-search term sent in the ad request must exactly match the term the user clicked, and each click must resolve to a search results page on the publisher's own site with relevant results. Exact match keeps the user's request and the destination aligned, the same accuracy principle that governs page copy.
Matching the promise to the page you actually serve
The review closes on the landing page. The traffic source must be relevant to and accurately describe the page. It must not promise products, services or promotional offers that are absent or hard to find there. Paid and organic arrivals must see substantially the same page; the materials note that organic and paid traffic cannot be sent to A/B versions. Deceptive navigation is separately prohibited, including ads disguised as menus, navigation elements or download links, false claims that content is playable or downloadable, and redirects to irrelevant or misleading pages. A page can pass sentence review and still fail if the promised offer is buried or missing after the click.
Where claim rules end and targeting rules begin
A separate restriction applies to ad targeting. In the United States and Canada, ads for credit-related products or services, banking products and certain financial planning services — including credit cards and loans — must not be personalized by gender, age, parental status, marital status or ZIP code. Personalized ads also must not use sensitive information such as negative financial status. That is a targeting rule, not another bucket for page claims, and it is outside this claim-review scope.
What this packet cannot confirm
The retrieved policy text is a Chinese-language copy of Google materials, and the examples here are translations. Verify exact English wording in Google's official publisher policy help centre before relying on a phrase-level conclusion. Policies may be revised, and publishers are responsible for staying current. Enforcement is discretionary: Google may suspend serving, require changes to implementation, or exercise rights under the applicable service agreements; none of those outcomes is automatic.
The materials do not cover the Truth in Lending Act, Regulation Z or CARD Act advertising requirements. Nothing here satisfies federal disclosure obligations. No rates, fees, welcome-bonus values, approval odds or issuer names appear in the materials, so none are asserted. Route regulated credit claims through the publisher's own compliance or legal review. Use this as pre-publication triage, not a substitute for that review.
研究の知恵