Google Urges FTC Complaints Against Unethical SEOs

Google has quietly updated its guidance page for businesses considering hiring an SEO, making it more concise and direct. For the first time, the page includes a significant warning about AEO/GEO services, cautions against relying on third-party SEO tools, and explicitly encourages businesses to file complaints with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) if they feel deceived by fraudulent SEO practices.

The revised page, titled “Do you need an SEO?”, now features roughly seven notable changes. Its core mission remains unchanged: to help businesses decide whether hiring an SEO is right for them, outline what to look for during the hiring process, and provide clear advice on avoiding unethical or risky tactics. The page also continues to encourage businesses to educate themselves about SEO fundamentals before making a hiring decision.

One of the most striking additions is the inclusion of generative AI optimization (often called AEO or GEO) as a legitimate service an SEO might offer. The updated list of typical SEO services now includes “Optimizing for generative AI,” though Google offers no further description or guidance on what this entails. This marks a clear acknowledgment that AI-driven search experiences are a growing part of the landscape.

However, Google pairs this acknowledgment with a sharp caution. The new guidance warns businesses to verify that any AI optimization advice aligns with Google’s official guidelines and does not cross the line into spam. Specifically, it advises: “If they have advice on optimizing for AI experiences (also known as ‘AEO’ ‘GEO’ services), is their advice aligned with Google Search’s official guidance on optimizing for generative AI features?”

Another major shift is Google’s explicit discouragement of third-party SEO tools. The updated page states that Google does not evaluate or endorse any third-party tools and reminds businesses that these tools have no access to Google’s internal ranking data. It warns against tools that claim to be “acceptable” or “approved” by Google Search. The recommendation is clear: before making significant site changes based on a tool’s audit, compare its recommendations against official Google documentation and think critically about the claims.

The page also tightens language around ranking guarantees. The updated guidance is blunt: “No one can guarantee a #1 ranking on Google. Beware of SEOs that claim to guarantee rankings, allege a ‘special relationship’ with Google, or advertise a ‘priority submit’ to Google.” This section is more direct and easier to understand than previous versions.

Perhaps the most significant change is Google’s new encouragement to report deceptive SEOs to the FTC. The updated page includes a specific section titled “Reporting issues,” which reads: “If you feel that you were deceived by an SEO in some way, you may want to report it. In the United States, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) handles complaints about deceptive or unfair business practices.” It provides the FTC website and phone number, as well as a link for international complaints. This moves the conversation beyond Google’s own spam policies and into the realm of legal compliance, signaling a tougher stance on unethical practices.

The underlying message is clear: Google is no longer just warning businesses about shady SEOs; it is actively arming them with a mechanism to take formal action. While Google and the SEO industry have long had an adversarial relationship, this update raises the stakes. The reference to the FTC is a notable escalation, as it suggests that some SEO tactics, such as undisclosed paid links, may not just violate Google’s guidelines but also run afoul of federal advertising laws.

In summary, Google’s updated guidance acknowledges AI optimization as a valid service while simultaneously cautioning against overreach, warns against unverified third-party tools, and, for the first time, directs businesses to report fraudulent SEOs to the FTC. This update tightens the screws on unethical operators and signals that Google is willing to push the boundary beyond its own policies into legal territory.