You run a popular home renovation website that has ranked well in Google for years. A payday loan company approaches you with a proposal: it will prepare a ranking of short-term loans, you publish it on your site, and you earn a commission for referred customers.

Why does the company want to appear on your website when loans have very little to do with home renovation?

Because your domain already has a good reputation with Google. On a new, unknown site, that ranking would have to fight for visibility from scratch. On a strong domain, it can get a much easier start.

WebsiteGarage / Services

Explore our services.

That is exactly the kind of use of someone else’s domain reputation that Google targets with its site reputation abuse policy.

On August 30, 2026, however, Google is changing how it enforces that policy for search results shown to users in the European Economic Area.

What exactly is “site reputation abuse”?

Put simply, the owner of a strong website knowingly makes part of the domain available for content created by another entity, and the main reason is to take advantage of that domain’s reputation in Google.

Google itself gives similar examples.

One problematic case could be an educational website publishing sponsored payday loan rankings prepared by an external company, especially if the same material also appears on other domains.

Another example is a health website publishing a low-quality page about the “best casinos” created by an external company. The content has little to do with the site’s actual purpose, but it benefits from the standing the health domain had already built up with completely different material.

You can think of it a little like renting out your domain’s reputation.

The outside company does not get access to your admin panel and does not hack the website. Everything happens with the owner’s consent. It simply supplies content, a section, or an entire partnership model that is then published on the established domain.

No, hiring a copywriter does not mean you have a problem

This distinction matters because the phrase “external content” can sound much more alarming than it should.

If a freelancer writes blog posts for you, that does not automatically break the rules. Publishing a sponsored article does not automatically create a problem either. The same applies to affiliate content, partner content, user comments, or material supplied by an agency.

Google explicitly says that the fact content was created by someone outside the company is not enough on its own. The key question is why that content was placed on that particular domain.

If its main purpose is to exploit the position and reputation of an established site to achieve Google rankings that the material probably could not achieve on its own, that is where the problem begins.

What changes on August 30?

Now we get to the actual news. Google can still decide that a particular part of a site violates the site reputation abuse policy. The site owner can still receive a manual action notice in Google Search Console.

What changes is the effect of that action.

Outside the EEA

If Google applies a manual action, the affected part of the site can directly lose visibility in search results. The rest of the domain does not necessarily have to suffer.

In the EEA

From August 30, that manual action will not affect results shown to users located in the EEA. That does not mean the affected section gets a free pass.

Google can treat it as a section that is independent of the main domain. Over time, its systems may learn to evaluate it separately, without automatically assuming that because it sits on a strong domain, it represents the same level of quality as the rest of the site.

Put even more simply:

Outside the EEA, Google can directly penalize that section. In the EEA, it can remove the section’s ability to benefit from the reputation of the rest of the site.

That is the fundamental difference.

This does not mean “Google no longer penalizes sites in Europe”

That conclusion would go much too far.

If the entire business model of a section depends on outside content gaining visibility because it sits on a known, strong domain, the problem does not disappear. In the EEA, the mechanism changes. Google says it will not apply the effect of a manual action to search results shown to users in the EEA, but it can still treat that section as separate from the main domain and make it compete for rankings based on its own value.

If the domain’s reputation was the main reason the arrangement made economic sense, that separation can undermine the whole point of the deal.

The same website can be treated differently in Germany and the UK

This is one of the more interesting consequences of the change. A manual action concerning a particular page can still exist, but its impact will depend on where the user is searching from. For someone searching in Germany, Poland, or another EEA country, the effect of the manual action will not be applied. For a user outside the EEA, the same disputed section of the site can still be directly affected by Google’s manual intervention.

If a website operates internationally, you therefore cannot judge the situation based only on rankings in one market.

Who does this actually affect?

If you run an ordinary business website, have a blog, and use a copywriter or agency, you probably do not need to do anything.

The issue matters mainly to companies and publishers that:

  • make part of their domain available to external partners,
  • publish large affiliate sections,
  • run rankings or comparisons prepared by external providers,
  • have coupon or deals sections run in cooperation with another company,
  • publish commercial content only loosely related to the site’s main subject,
  • receive ready-made material from a partner that also publishes the same content on other sites.

Importantly, even a coupon section created together with a specialist provider does not necessarily have to be a problem. Google gives such a partnership as an example where it would probably not take action if the section is genuinely integrated with the site, has editorial oversight, and functions like a normal part of the site.

How does Google decide whether a section really belongs to the site?

Google has also clarified what it may look at during a manual review. Relevant factors can include whether that part of the site looks and behaves like the rest of the website, whether it represents a similar level of quality, who is responsible for its content, and whether identical or nearly identical material appears on other domains. But this is not a simple checklist where four “yes” answers automatically mean a penalty.

Google says no single factor is enough by itself to establish a violation. The point is to assess whether the content is genuinely part of the site or is mainly benefiting from being hosted on a strong domain.

What should a website owner do?

If you do not have any large sections run by external partners, there is no reason to suddenly audit your entire site.

If you do use this kind of partnership model, it is worth:

  • checking the Manual Actions report in Google Search Console,
  • reviewing sections run or supplied by partners,
  • checking who is actually responsible for their content and quality,
  • checking whether the material makes sense for your site’s audience,
  • checking whether the partner distributes essentially the same content across many domains.

You can also ask yourself one very simple question:

Would I publish this section even if my domain did not have a strong position in Google?

If the answer is “probably not”, the arrangement deserves a closer look.

Why is Europe being treated differently?

Google explicitly says the change was introduced after discussions with the European Commission.

On November 13, 2025, the European Commission had already opened formal proceedings specifically concerning Google’s site reputation abuse policy. The regulator is examining whether the way Google reduces the visibility of commercial partner content published on publishers’ sites is compatible with its obligations under the Digital Markets Act.

The Commission pointed out that working with external content providers can also be a normal and lawful way for publishers to make money.

The proceedings do not in themselves mean that Google has violated the law. The Commission is examining whether the rules give publishers fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory conditions of access to search.

WebsiteGarage’s take

You could turn this into a very dramatic headline: “The EU banned Google from penalizing websites”. It would also be spectacularly wrong.

Google still considers using a strong domain to artificially boost outside content to be manipulation of search results. What changes is how it will respond to that in the EEA. And in practice, the whole policy can be reduced to one simple test.

If a company pays to appear on your website because you have the right audience, the partnership may make perfect sense. If it mainly pays because you have a domain Google likes, things may become less attractive.

From August 30, Google is not supposed to directly push such a section down in European search results through a manual action. But in practice it can say: if you are a separate business, show what you are worth without borrowing the domain owner’s reputation.

Only then will it become clear what the partner was really paying for.

Primary sources

  • Google Search Central, August 28, 2026: update to the Site Reputation Policy and the rules taking effect on August 30.
  • Google Search Central: Spam Policies for Google Web Search, Site Reputation Policy section, examples, and assessment rules for the EEA and markets outside the EEA.
  • European Commission, November 13, 2025: announcement opening proceedings concerning Google’s policy under the Digital Markets Act.