Classify the claim, not the adjective
Google's publisher compliance framework sorts problem promotions by what the sentence commits to. A page promising a concrete outcome the publisher cannot deliver — approval, a specific limit — sits in the egregious tier, where one violation equals one strike. A merely imprecise promise, or one naming information the page never supplies, sits in the normal tier, where five violations equal one strike. "No credit check" matters less as a phrase than as a commitment: can you fulfill what the sentence asserts?
The egregious tier: outcomes you do not decide
The retrieved compliance table lists, among egregious examples, "specific promises outside of your control," illustrated by "Open a PNC high-yield savings account with no credit check!" Read that narrowly: it is a bank-account example, and no retrieved material states how Google treats an actual card claim. The category still fits card copy — "guaranteed approval," "everyone approved" — because each commits the page to underwriting results you neither decide nor verify.
Concreteness and control raise risk together. A number, a rate, or a verb like guarantee signals a definite result rather than a hope, and the decision belongs to an issuer, not to you. A line can sound responsible and still fail both tests, so "no credit check" invites scrutiny even where an issuer is lenient. Other egregious examples — unreasonably cheap offers, free or cash offers, promised loans — share that through-line: a commitment the publisher cannot underwrite.
The normal tier: vagueness and missing deliverables
Lower-severity problems are cheaper per violation and easy to overlook. The normal row covers promises that are made but not clear or explicit, and specific information promoted without the promised asset, such as "See a list of top doctors near you!" with no list supplied. Card-page versions are routine: "the 7 best cards for you" with no stated selection method, or "we compare every issuer" when the page compares three. Five of these equal one strike, so softening an adjective changes little, while delivering the promised list or stating the ranking basis removes the exposure.
Where the two tiers sit on paper
| Violation tier | Example given in retrieved policy text | Stated strike weighting |
|---|
| Egregious violation | Concrete promises outside the publisher's control, including promised loans and the illustration "Open a PNC high-yield savings account with no credit check!" | 1 egregious violation = 1 strike |
| Normal violation | Unclear promises (example: "Graduate education should be affordable!") and information promised but not delivered (example: "See a list of top doctors near you!" with no list) | 5 violations = 1 strike |
One concrete guarantee outweighs five soft claims: a single "guaranteed approval" line is riskier than a page that keeps the superlatives. The table gives weighting only; no timelines, appeal routes, or enforcement outcomes were retrieved.
Adjacent traps card pages walk into
Four page-level rules apply separately from wording. Misleading statements: policy prohibits misrepresenting or concealing who the publisher is and what the content is for, and prohibits implying endorsement by another person, organization, or product — a comparison page borrowing an issuer's logo or hinting at a partnership it lacks is exposed. Deceptive promotion: false or deceptive information used to promote products is prohibited, with get-rich-quick schemes as the stated example. Space ratio: ads and other paid promotional content may not occupy more screen space than your own content, and affiliate offer blocks count as paid promotional content. Copied content: ads may not run on embedded or copied content without commentary, curation, or added value; scraped comparison tables with no original analysis fit that description.
Targeting is a separate axis from wording
Copy rules govern what the page says; targeting rules govern who the ad reaches, and both apply. In the US and Canada, personalized ads for credit-related products — credit cards and loans are the named examples — may not be selected or targeted using audience gender, age, parental status, marital status, or postal/ZIP code. Negative financial-status signals are likewise off-limits: data indicating a low credit rating or a high debt burden may not select personalized ads or be collected through audience and cookie lists. Rewriting the headline does nothing here; if your setup filters by ZIP code or builds lists around hardship keywords, the exposure is structural. Interest-based ads also require labeling, such as the Ad Options icon, and self-regulatory compliance such as the Digital Advertising Alliance principles.
Pre-publish checklist
- Classify each claim: concrete plus outside your control means rewrite or drop.
- Confirm every promised deliverable exists — shortlist, comparison, quiz result.
- State the selection basis behind any ranking language.
- Remove issuer logos and partnership claims you cannot substantiate.
- Verify editorial text outweighs ads plus affiliate blocks.
- Confirm comparison tables carry your own commentary, not pasted content.
- Check that targeting and audience lists exclude gender, age, parental status, marital status, ZIP code, and credit-hardship signals.
- Confirm ads are labeled and separated from organic results, with no rewards for ad views or searches.
What this article cannot settle
The policy copy here came from an internal, partly translated compliance mirror; exact live English wording and effective date were not verified, so confirm against the official Google policy pages. A publisher-policy classification is not a legal ruling and does not resolve US consumer-credit or advertising law. No card product, issuer, APR, fee, or approval criterion was verified, and the "no credit check" illustration concerns a savings account. No strike history, appeal route, or reinstatement timeline was retrieved. Policy text changes without notice, so route final wording through your own compliance or legal reviewer.
研究の知恵