Tag: Regulations

  • Google’s New Stance: Personal Info in Spam Reports Unused

    Google’s New Stance: Personal Info in Spam Reports Unused

    Recently, I noticed a significant change in Google’s approach to handling spam reports. They’ve updated their stance on whether they’ll process reports containing personally identifying information, and it feels like a big shift from what was communicated just a week prior.

    On their updated spam report page, Google now clearly states that any spam report containing personally identifying information will not be processed. This revision comes after their previous announcement that such information could be passed on to the site in question.

    Here’s What’s Changed: Google has added a highlighted note on their official spam report page, emphasizing two points:

    (1) Avoid including personally identifying information in your spam reports.

    (2) If you do include such information, your submission won’t be processed.

    Google’s explanation reads:

    “Don’t include any personally identifying information in your submission. To comply with regulations, we must send the submission text to the site owner to help them understand the context of a manual action, if one is issued. Because of this, we won’t process your submission if we determine it contains personally identifying information to protect privacy. Not including such information fully ensures your information is safe and prevents your submission from being discarded.”

    Previously: Just a week ago, as we documented, Google allowed:

    • “If we issue a manual action, we send whatever you write in the submission report verbatim to the site owner to help them understand the context of the manual action.”

    This policy raised many eyebrows across the industry. Concerns were not just about being flagged for identifying competitors or spammers, but there were also legal implications. It seems Google is now aligning with regulations to avoid sharing personally identifying data.

    Why You Should Care: If you’re aiming to submit a spam report to Google, make sure it doesn’t contain any personally identifying information. Should you inadvertently include such information, rest assured that it won’t reach the reported site and the report simply won’t be processed. You can always resubmit your report without these details.


    Inspired by this post on Search Engine Land.


    crushpress.ai community screenshot
  • Google Ad Manager Relaxes Pricing Rules Amid Antitrust Scrutiny

    Google Ad Manager Relaxes Pricing Rules Amid Antitrust Scrutiny

    I’ve noticed that Google has recently made a significant change to its Ad Manager by removing the unified pricing rules. This change allows publishers like me to set different price floors for various bidders, potentially causing a shift in programmatic auction pricing.

    In practical terms, this means I can now specify that one buyer must bid at least $5 while others might have a lower minimum of $2. Interestingly, Google has also rebranded “unified pricing rules” to just “pricing rules.”

    Before 2019, I had more flexibility to set higher floors specifically for Google, which helped balance its data advantages. However, this was all put on hold when uniform pricing was mandated, a decision that didn’t go unnoticed by regulatory bodies in the U.S. and Europe.

    Why does this matter to me? With the return of bidder-specific pricing rules, the auction dynamics shift. Higher floors for certain buyers could influence win rates and CPMs, ultimately affecting my advertising strategies and inventory.

    Regulatory pressure seems to be a catalyst for this rollback. For instance, the U.S. accused Google of anti-competitive behavior, which resulted in proposals to end unified pricing. Meanwhile, Europe fined Google €2.95 billion, demanding it cease self-preferencing within the ad tech supply chain.

    According to Google, this update should simplify the process for publishers and advertisers like me to work with competing ad tech solutions, while aiming to minimize disruption. They view this as part of broader strategic changes across display, video, and app ads.

    Industry reactions appear positive. Jason Kint from Digital Content Next mentioned that the change brings meaningful relief, as unified pricing previously reduced yield. It also signals compliance with regulatory pressures, potentially averting stricter remedies.

    Ultimately, after more than six years, I feel like I’m regaining some control over the pricing in Google Ad Manager. This shift is less about Google’s product strategy and more about responding to intense antitrust scrutiny.


    Inspired by this post on Search Engine Land.


    crushpress.ai community screenshot