I just saw the EU probe Google’s ‘site reputation’ crackdown—and 10% fines are on the table

What Changed and Why It Matters

The European Commission has opened a formal investigation into Google’s “site reputation abuse” policy, the anti-spam rule that can demote high-authority domains hosting third‑party partner content. Investigators are testing whether the policy violates the Digital Markets Act (DMA) by unfairly lowering rankings for publishers that use partner content-a common monetization model for deals, coupons, commerce, and reviews. If the Commission finds a breach, Google faces fines up to 10% of global revenue and potentially binding remedies that could reshape how ranking enforcement and transparency work in Europe.

Key Takeaways

• Substantive change: Brussels is targeting a specific Google policy that penalizes “site reputation abuse,” not spam broadly-zeroing in on partner content embedded on publisher sites.
• Business impact: Commerce and affiliate programs that rely on search discovery face traffic and revenue risk if partner content triggers demotions or manual actions.
• DMA lens: The case hinges on fairness, non‑discrimination, and ranking transparency duties for gatekeepers; the Commission will test whether enforcement restricts publishers’ ability to do business or cooperate.
• Google’s position: The company argues the policy preserves quality and has been upheld in at least one national court, warning that interference could degrade results.
• Timing: Expect a multi‑month process into 2026; outcomes could include transparency obligations, clearer appeal pathways, or constraints on blanket demotions.

Breaking Down the Announcement

The Commission is focusing on whether Google’s policy disproportionately lowers the visibility of publishers that host third‑party content-even when that content is legitimate, disclosed, and editorially supervised. Under the DMA, gatekeepers must apply fair, transparent, and non‑discriminatory ranking conditions and provide meaningful information about ranking parameters to business users. Regulators are exploring if Google’s rules, as enforced since mid‑2024, have chilled legitimate cooperation between publishers and partners by making search traffic less predictable and appeals opaque.

Technical Deep Dive: How the Policy Works

Google’s March 2024 spam updates introduced the “site reputation abuse” prohibition: high‑authority domains hosting third‑party content primarily intended to manipulate ranking—without close oversight—could face manual actions or algorithmic demotions. Enforcement hit coupon and deals subdomains, sponsored commerce hubs, and partner-authored review pages. While Google says the policy targets manipulative setups, detection blends manual review and machine‑learning signals that can misclassify nuanced, commercially relevant content. Publishers report limited advance guidance on thresholds for “close supervision,” inconsistent notifications, and minimal recourse when traffic drops suddenly.

What This Means for Publishers

For news and lifestyle publishers, partner content is not marginal—it’s a material slice of digital monetization and subscriber acquisition. Demotions can translate into immediate revenue loss across affiliates, retail media, and sponsored commerce. Remediation is costly: editorial workflows must demonstrate oversight, templating must distinguish partner modules from core journalism, and governance needs auditable controls. Larger publishers can invest in compliance engineering and quality signals; smaller titles and regional outlets may struggle, raising the risk of consolidation or retreat from commerce content altogether.

Industry Context and Competitive Angle

Google’s share of search in Europe means policy shifts ripple across the entire publisher economy. Bing and other engines have similar spam policies, but none approach Google’s distribution impact. At the same time, news referral patterns are volatile as platforms experiment with AI‑assisted answers and reduce click‑outs. In this context, the Commission’s case is as much about predictability and due process as it is about ranking quality. Google cites a German ruling that backed the legitimacy of its approach; the DMA, however, sets broader, ex‑ante obligations that could force more granular transparency and nondiscrimination commitments.

Governance and Compliance Considerations

If the Commission finds a DMA infringement, expect remedies that prioritize procedural fairness: clearer definitions of “close supervision,” standardized notices and timelines for manual actions, robust appeals with evidentiary standards, and disclosures about key ranking factors affecting partner content. For AI‑driven enforcement, that likely means better error controls, bias testing for false positives against certain publisher categories, and more actionable Search Console diagnostics. The broader signal to platforms: algorithmic quality measures must be paired with business‑user transparency that supports compliance without disclosing abuse vectors.

Operator’s Playbook: What to Do Now

• Audit partner content end‑to‑end: inventory subdomains, templates, bylines, and affiliate modules. Document editorial oversight, fact‑checking, and independence standards.
• Strengthen signals of supervision: require publisher‑side commissioning, editorial review logs, visible labels, and schema markup that distinguishes ads, affiliates, and editorial content.
• Instrument observability: track Search Console coverage, manual action notices, and query‑level traffic shifts. Set alerting thresholds for sudden drops on commerce verticals.
• Diversify acquisition: accelerate direct channels (newsletters, apps), retail partnerships, and non‑Google search optimizations to reduce single‑point dependency.
• Engage policy and legal: prepare evidence dossiers of legitimate partner use cases, quantify economic impact, and participate in consultations via industry associations.

What to Watch Next

• Any Statement of Objections from the Commission outlining specific DMA breaches tied to ranking transparency and discrimination.
• Google’s proposed commitments: clearer definitions, changes to manual action workflows, or expanded publisher tooling to prevent misclassification.
• Potential interim measures if the Commission sees ongoing harm during peak retail periods.
• Spillover to other ranking surfaces where partner content appears, including shopping units and answer-style results.