Google Faces EU Probe Over Parasite SEO Crackdown
▼ Summary
– The European Commission is investigating whether Google unfairly demotes news publishers in search results under the Digital Markets Act.
– Google defends its site reputation abuse policy, stating it protects users from scams and prevents spammy tactics from degrading search quality.
– Publishers argue the policy penalizes legitimate revenue models like sponsored content, potentially restricting their monetization efforts.
– Google has manually enforced penalties on major publishers and updated its policy to target content designed to exploit ranking signals.
– The investigation’s outcome could force changes to Google’s spam enforcement in Europe or validate its current approach to search quality.
Google is currently facing a formal investigation by the European Commission concerning its enforcement of site reputation abuse policies, which critics argue unfairly impacts news publishers in search results. The tech giant has strongly defended its position, stating the EU probe is misguided and could ultimately harm millions of European users by rewarding bad actors and degrading the overall quality of search results.
The European Commission initiated this investigation under the Digital Markets Act, examining whether Google’s anti-spam policies unfairly penalize legitimate publisher revenue models. Publishers have complained that Google demotes news sites hosting sponsored content and third-party promotional material. EU antitrust chief Teresa Ribera expressed concern that Google’s policies may not allow news publishers to be treated fairly, reasonably, and without discrimination in its search rankings.
Google updated its site reputation abuse policy last year specifically to combat parasite SEO, a practice where spammers pay publishers to host content on established domains purely to manipulate search rankings. The policy targets content such as payday loan reviews on educational websites, casino promotions on medical sites, or third-party coupon pages on news publishers. Google provided clear examples including weight-loss pill spam and payday loan promotions. Manual enforcement began shortly after the update, with penalties issued to major publishers like Forbes, The Wall Street Journal, Time, and CNN in November 2024. Google later clarified that even first-party oversight does not exempt content primarily designed to exploit ranking signals.
In its defense, Google emphasized three key arguments. First, it noted that a German court dismissed a similar claim, ruling the anti-spam policy was valid, reasonable, and applied consistently. Second, the company asserts its policy protects users from scams and low-quality content, arguing that allowing pay-to-play ranking manipulation would enable bad actors to displace sites that don’t use spammy tactics. Third, Google claims smaller creators support the crackdown, as the policy helps level the playing field so legitimate sites competing on content quality aren’t outranked by those using deceptive methods. Google’s Chief Scientist for Search, Pandu Nayak, argued the Digital Markets Act is already making Search less helpful for European businesses and users, and the new probe risks rewarding bad actors.
So far, Google has relied exclusively on manual enforcement for site reputation abuse, confirming in May 2024 that it hadn’t launched algorithmic actions, only manual reviews by human evaluators. The company added site reputation abuse to its Search Quality Rater Guidelines in January 2025, defining it as content published on host sites mainly because of that host site’s already-established ranking signals.
This investigation highlights a fundamental conflict between spam enforcement and publisher business models. Google maintains that parasite SEO degrades search results regardless of who profits, while publishers argue that sponsored content with editorial oversight provides legitimate value and revenue, especially during challenging times for the media industry. The distinction is critical: if Google’s policy captures legitimate publisher-advertiser partnerships, it restricts how news organizations monetize content; if it only targets manipulative tactics, it protects search quality.
The EU’s position suggests regulators view Google’s enforcement as potentially discriminatory. The Digital Markets Act prohibits gatekeepers from unfairly penalizing others, with potential fines reaching up to 10% of global revenue for violations. Google addressed some concerns in December 2024, confirming that properly marked affiliate content isn’t affected and that publishers must submit reconsideration requests through Search Console to remove penalties. The updated policy documentation clarified that simply hosting third-party content isn’t a violation unless it is explicitly published to exploit a site’s rankings. This policy has sparked significant debate within the SEO community about whether Google should penalize sites based on business arrangements rather than content quality alone.
Looking ahead, the European Commission will gather evidence and define the specific DMA provisions under examination. Google will receive formal statements of objections outlining alleged violations and will have the opportunity to respond with arguments defending its policies. DMA investigations proceed faster than traditional antitrust cases, and publishers may submit formal complaints providing evidence of traffic losses and revenue impacts. The final outcome could either force changes to how Google enforces spam policies in Europe or validate its current approach to protecting search quality.
(Source: Search Engine Journal)
