Google's site reputation policy now depends on where the searcher is. What the EEA split changes

KEY TAKEAWAYS

1. The outcome follows the searcher's location, not the site's. One section can face two regimes.
2. In the EEA the manual demotion is gone, but a section can be ranked apart from its host.
3. Google now publishes four review factors. Use them as a self-audit before hosting partner content.
4. Split Search Console data into EEA and non-EEA before reading any trend. No one has post-change data yet.

On 28 August 2026 Google changed how it enforces its site reputation policy, the rule aimed at what the industry calls parasite SEO. The change took effect on 30 August. Headlines said Google had dropped the penalties in Europe. Google's documentation says something narrower. This article sets out what the text says, where the coverage overstates it, and how to audit a section of your own site against the factors Google now publishes.

What changed on 30 August 2026?

The policy covers third-party content placed on a host site mainly to benefit from ranking signals the host earned with its own content. The usual example is a coupons or reviews section run by an outside company on a news domain.

Google's spam policies page, last updated on 28 August 2026, now gives two outcomes for the same finding.

• Searchers outside the European Economic Area. Pages found out of line may be subject to a manual action when they appear in results shown to those users.
• Searchers inside the EEA. The pages may be categorised as separate from the main domain but, in Google's words, "won't be subject to the impact of manual action".

Google's changelog entry for 28 August describes this only as an adjusted enforcement approach within the EEA. Reuters, Search Engine Roundtable and Search Engine Journal all give 30 August as the date it took effect.

One note on our reading. Google's announcement post would not load for us, so everything attributed to Google here comes from the live policy page, the changelog, or passages of the post reproduced by Search Engine Roundtable.

Why did Google change it?

The European Commission opened proceedings under the Digital Markets Act on 13 November 2025. Its notice says Google, on the basis of this policy, was demoting news media and other publishers when their sites included content from commercial partners. It described that as a common and legitimate way for publishers to earn money from their sites.

Tech Policy Press reported that the case rests on Articles 6(5) and 6(12) of the Act, that the Commission aimed to conclude within 12 months, and that fines can reach 10% of worldwide turnover.

Reuters reported on 6 May 2026 that Google had offered changes to the policy. On 28 August, according to Reuters, a Commission spokesman welcomed what he called the repeal of the policy. Google's spokesperson, in a statement carried by Search Engine Roundtable, said the company stands by the policy and remains concerned about efforts to weaken its spam rules.

Those two statements describe the same change in very different terms. The documentation decides which is closer.

Is it a repeal? What the text supports

No. Three things remain in place everywhere.

The policy still exists. The definition, the examples of violations and the human review all sit on the same page, with no regional limit.

The notice still arrives. The passages of Google's post reproduced by Search Engine Roundtable say site owners will continue to be notified in Search Console when a manual action is applied.

The section can still be set apart. In the EEA a flagged section may be categorised as separate from the main domain. The same post, as reproduced, says the section may be separated in Google's systems so that over time it ranks independently of the rest of the site.

The FAQ on the policy page explains what separate means. Google generally presumes that a page, including a new one, matches the overall quality of its domain. Categorisation tells its systems to stop applying that presumption to the section. Google adds that the categorisation is not itself used as a ranking signal, and that rankings may shift as its systems learn to evaluate the section on its own.

That is not a demotion. It is the removal of a borrowed advantage. For a section that ranked because of the host's strength, the practical result may be similar.

There is precedent for this. In October 2024 Glenn Gabe documented affiliate sections of large publishers losing visibility with no manual action. One directory, Fortune Recommends, had lost 67% of its search visibility at the time he wrote. Google told him its systems aim to understand whether a section of a site is independent of, or starkly different from, the main content. Sections were already being judged apart from their hosts two years ago.

One phrase in the coverage needs care. The Next Web wrote that algorithmic demotions continue. Google's page describes human review followed by a manual action or a categorisation. In May 2024 Search Engine Land quoted Google's Danny Sullivan saying enforcement was manual only and that the algorithmic part was not yet live. We found no announcement that it has launched. The safer statement is that the manual demotion has stopped for EEA searchers and section-level evaluation remains.

Which rules apply to which searcher?

The outcome follows the searcher's location, not the site's. A US publisher gets the EEA treatment for its readers in Germany. A French publisher still faces the manual action in results shown in the UK and US.

The EEA is the 27 EU member states plus Iceland, Norway and Liechtenstein. The UK is outside it.

The policy page also answers a practical worry. A manual action taken for searchers outside the EEA does not affect EEA results, and site owners are under no obligation to add a noindex tag to the affected content.

What do reviewers look at? The four factors

The page now carries a block of detailed guidance. It lists four factors a human reviewer considers and says none is necessary or sufficient alone.

Google gives three examples. A publisher's coupons section run with a specialist provider is marked as unlikely to draw action, because it is organised for that publisher, disclosed, referenced from other editorial content and under the publisher's stated responsibility. An unsigned affiliate article that sits outside the publication's sections and duplicates a marketplace's content is marked as likely to draw action. A cooking section written by a named freelancer with editorial oversight and affiliate links is marked as unlikely.

The coupons example is notable. Search Engine Land reported in May 2024 that the coupon directories of several large news sites stopped ranking for coupon queries when enforcement began. And Google's changelog for 19 November 2024 says the wording was clarified so that first-party involvement or oversight did not excuse the practice. We could not compare the old and new text line by line, so we do not claim the rule was loosened. What we can say is that the current page describes an integrated, disclosed, curated partner section as acceptable.

The same page lists practices that are not violations, including wire and press release services, syndicated news, forums and comment sections, and editorial columns.

An eight-step audit for any section a third party touches

1. List the sections. Every sub-folder, subdomain or white-label tool where an outside party writes, supplies or runs the content.
2. Check presentation. Same templates and navigation as the main site, and reachable from the main navigation.
3. Check quality. Hold the section to the standard of your strongest editorial pages.
4. Check authorship. A named author, a responsible editor, a commercial disclosure and a statement that you are editorially responsible.
5. Check duplication. Search for a distinctive sentence. If the same content runs on other hosts, make yours specific to your site or remove it.
6. Open the Manual actions report in Search Console.
7. Split performance by region. Group the section's clicks into EEA countries and all others, and track the two lines separately. Something Inc. recommended this split when the change was announced.
8. If actioned, fix first. Then file a reconsideration request. For the EEA, Google commits to answer within a short timeframe, and eligible sites may take a dispute to mediation.

A worked example with invented numbers

This publisher is hypothetical, and so are the percentages. Google publishes no such figures.

Its deals section gets 10,000 organic clicks a month. 6,000 come from searchers outside the EEA and 4,000 from inside.

The section is found out of line. Suppose non-EEA clicks fall 90% under the manual action, to 600. Suppose EEA clicks fall 30% over some months as the section stops inheriting the host's strength, to 2,800.

A blended report shows one number, 66% lower, and hides two causes. The first is a manual action. It appears in Search Console and can be appealed. The second is gradual and has no penalty attached, so there is nothing to appeal. The EEA share of the section's traffic moves from 40% to 82%, which would look like growth in Europe if you read shares alone.

The same discipline applies to any drop. Our guide to diagnosing a fall during the September spam update separates causes the same way.

What it means if you buy placements

A brand that pays for content on a strong domain is on the other side of this policy. The value of that page depends on the section keeping the host's standing. Under either regime, a section judged out of line loses it.

So the four factors work as a buyer's checklist too. Look for a named author, the publication's own editorial voice, a place in its normal sections and content written for that publication alone. That is the difference between coverage and rented space. Our piece on what a high-authority placement does covers the coverage side, and the placement marketplace is where to start looking.

What is still unknown

• How separation works. Search Engine Journal noted that Google has not said how sections are separated or how long independent ranking takes to settle.
• Who can use mediation. PPC Land pointed out that Google has not defined eligibility or named a mediation body.
• Whether the case is closed. The Next Web reported on 28 August that the Commission had not said whether it accepts the change as an adequate remedy.
• What happened to traffic. We looked for measured data on EEA visibility after 30 August and found none. Any recovery figure you see is an estimate.

Until data exists, the documentation is the best guide. Read it as a change in the consequence, not in the rule.

Questions

Did Google drop parasite SEO penalties in Europe?

Only the ranking effect of the manual action, and only for results shown to searchers in the EEA. The policy, the human review and the Search Console notice remain. A section found out of line can be categorised as separate from the main domain, which removes the borrowed strength the tactic depends on.

Does the EEA change apply to UK searches?

No. The EEA is the 27 EU member states plus Iceland, Norway and Liechtenstein. The UK is outside it, so a manual action still affects results shown to UK searchers.

Is a site based in the EU exempt in the United States?

No. Google's documentation ties the outcome to where the searcher is, not where the site is based. An EU publisher's flagged section can still be demoted in results shown to users outside the EEA.

Are coupon sections allowed under the policy?

Google's guidance includes an example of a publisher coupons section run with a specialist provider that it marks as unlikely to draw action. In the example the section is disclosed, curated for that publisher, integrated with the rest of the site and under the publisher's editorial responsibility.

Sources

1. Google Search Central, Spam policies for Google web search developers.google.com
2. Google Search Central, Latest documentation updates developers.google.com
3. European Commission, Commission opens investigation into potential Digital Markets Act breach by Google in demoting media publishers' content in search results digital-markets-act.ec.europa.eu
4. European Commission, Shaping Europe's digital future, Commission opens investigation into potential Digital Markets Act breach by Google digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu
5. Tech Policy Press, Breaking down the EU's investigation into Google's search policy techpolicy.press
6. The Star (Reuters), Google changes spam policy in EU to avert antitrust fine thestar.com.my
7. Yahoo Finance (Reuters), Google offers changes to spam policy to avert EU antitrust fine finance.yahoo.com
8. Search Engine Roundtable, Google Won't Enforce Its Site Reputation Policy Manual Actions In Europe seroundtable.com
9. Search Engine Journal, Google Updates Site Reputation Abuse Policy, Removes Penalties In EEA searchenginejournal.com
10. Search Engine Journal, Google's Site Reputation Abuse Crackdown Hits Major Publishers searchenginejournal.com
11. Search Engine Land, Google begins enforcement of site reputation abuse policy with portions of sites being delisted searchengineland.com
12. GSQi, A Nightmare on Affiliate Street gsqi.com
13. PPC Land, Google drops EEA search penalties under site reputation policy August 30 ppc.land
14. The Next Web, Google stops demoting EU publishers under its spam policy from Sunday thenextweb.com
15. Something Inc., Site reputation abuse policy EEA enforcement split somethinginc.com
16. Whito, Google site reputation policy EEA UK whito.co.uk

NEXT STEP

See where your brand stands.

Your Digital Authority Score, who AI recommends for your target questions, and the placements that close each gap. Your first report is free.

Get your free report →