Google AdsCircumventing Systems

Google Ads Policy Update on “Bypass Systems” Targets Gambling and Gaming Advertisers

Google Ads“规避系统“政策更新,针对赌博与游戏广告主

January 26, 2026
7 views

Summary

Google Ads has announced an update to its “Circumventing Systems” policy, which will take effect in November 2024. Given the high-risk nature of gambling and gaming advertisements, the update introduces enhanced disclosure obligations and stricter account management for certified advertisers. Under the new rules, advertisers holding gambling and gaming certifications must reapply if any material changes occur in their products, regulatory compliance status, or licensing conditions. Failure to do so may constitute a violation of the circumvention policy, which is treated as a serious offense. In such cases, Google may immediately suspend the advertiser’s account without prior notice and permanently prohibit future advertising. The update significantly raises compliance standards for gambling and gaming advertisers, particularly those operating across multiple jurisdictions.

Recently, Google Ads announced the latest update to its “System Evasion” policy, which will take effect in November 2024. Gambling and gaming ads fall under high-risk categories, as their content often misleads users or violates local regulations. Due to economic, cultural, and religious differences, the legal adjustments involved are more complex than for other ad types, with varying rules across regions. Therefore, this update specifically requires gambling and gaming advertisers to disclose information and strengthens management of advertising accounts.

PART 1

“System Evasion” Policy

“System evasion” refers to any attempt to circumvent or interfere with Google's advertising systems and processes, or attempts to do so. The policy aims to prevent deliberate deception of Google Ads reviews to deliver ads containing illegal content.

Based on previous updates, Google provides examples (but not limited to):

*Interfering with Google's review systems by concealing the true content of ads or websites, such as displaying different content to Google and other users; hiding or attempting to hide non-compliant content, including:

(1) Redirecting to non-compliant content

(2) Using dynamic DNS to switch webpage or ad content

(3) Manipulating website content or excessively restricting landing page access, making it difficult for systems to effectively review ads, websites, or accounts

(4) Using click-tracking ad code to redirect users to malicious sites

Note: Tailoring genuinely valuable personalized content for specific users does not constitute this type of substitution. Examples include providing different language versions of the same content or variations based on the user's ISP, provided the core content remains substantially the same, the variations comply with Google Ads policies, and Google can review at least one version.

*Using multiple accounts to repeatedly or simultaneously violate Google Ads policies.

*Creating variations of previously disapproved ads or content to circumvent review and detection.

*Creating new accounts after suspension to re-enter the Google Ads system.

*Abusing Google Ads product features to display non-compliant content.

*Submitting false information during verification processes.

PART 2

Update Details

If any material changes occur since submitting the gambling and gaming certification application, advertisers holding gambling and gaming certification must either recertify or cease relying on that certification to promote products falling under the gambling and gaming policy scope.

Material changes include:

(1) Changes to the products offered by the advertiser that conflict with any licenses or approvals provided to Google;

(2) Changes to the advertiser's compliance with applicable regulations;

(3) Changes to the advertiser's licenses or other compliance requirements for Google's “Gambling and Gaming” certification.

Note: Under the updated policy, changes to an advertiser's address or payment method are not considered material changes.

Failure to apply for recertification after a material change constitutes a violation of the “System Circumvention” policy. Typically, Google will notify advertisers of policy violations via in-account messages or email at least 7 days prior to account suspension, detailing the violation reason and providing an appeal link. Violating the “System Circumvention” policy constitutes a severe violation, as it involves illegal activity or poses significant harm to Google users, making it impossible for Google to assume the risk of displaying the advertiser's ads to users in the future. Upon detecting such behavior, Google will immediately suspend the account without prior warning, and the advertiser will be permanently barred from advertising through Google.

PART 3

Compliance Recommendations

Google sources information from diverse channels—including ads, accounts, content, user complaints, consumer reviews, regulatory warnings, and rulings—to detect policy violations. For this update, advertisers with gambling and gaming certifications are advised to self-audit account changes to avoid business losses from non-compliance:

(1) Carefully verify alignment between certifications held and advertised content. Google Ads requires separate certifications for offline and online gambling.

(2) Closely monitor gambling restrictions under local laws where ads are displayed. Promptly adjust ad content based on the latest legal requirements and understand which countries or regions permit specific types of gambling ads.

(3) Google currently employs distinct certification application methods for privately licensed operators, social casino game operators, and entities operating in countries/regions where only state-owned entities are permitted to conduct gambling activities. Advertisers should meticulously verify their acquired certifications. Additionally, separate applications must be submitted for promotions targeting different countries or regions.

中文原文

近日,Google Ads 公布了其“规避系统”政策的最新更新,该政策将于2024年11月正式生效。因赌博和游戏广告属于高风险类别,其内容通常容易误导他人或者违反当地法规,由于经济、文化、宗教等的差异,涉及调整的法律也较其他类型更加复杂,在不同地区会存在不同规定。故此次更新特别指定赌博和游戏广告主进行信息披露,并加强对广告账号的管理。

PART 1

“规避系统“政策

“规避系统“是指不允许出现规避或干扰 Google 广告系统和流程的行为,或试图做出此类行为。该政策的目的是防止人为欺骗Google Ads的审查以投放含非法内容的广告。

依据以往的更新,Google提供了一些示例(但不限于此):

  • *通过隐藏广告或网站的真实内容来干扰Google的审核系统,如向Google和其他用户展示不同的内容;隐藏或试图隐藏不符合政策的内容,例如:

(1)重定向到不符合规定的内容

(2)使用动态 DNS 来切换网页或广告内容

(3)操纵网站内容或过度限制访问的着陆页数量,导致系统难以对广告、网站或账号进行有效审核

(4)使用点击跟踪广告代码将用户重定向到恶意网站

注意:为某些用户量身提供可带来真正价值的个性化内容并不属于这种偷梁换柱的行为,比如,提供同一内容的不同语言版本或同一内容的不同版本(具体取决于用户的互联网服务提供商),只要提供的内容在实质上仍然相同、内容的变化仍然符合 Google Ads 政策且 Google 能够审核内容的一个版本就行

*使用多个账号反复或同时违反Google Ads政策。

  • *制作已被拒登广告或内容的变体,以避开审核和检测。

  • *在账号中止后再次创建新账号重新进入Google Ads系统。

  • *滥用Google Ads产品功能以展示不合规内容。

  • *在验证程序中提交虚假信息。

PART 2

更新内容

如果自提交赌博和游戏认证申请以来发生了实质性变更,则获得赌博和游戏认证的广告主必须重新认证或停止依靠该认证来宣传赌博和游戏政策范围内的产品。

所谓的实质性变更包括:

(1)广告主供应的产品发生与其向 Google 提供的任何许可证或批准不一致的变更;

(2)广告主对适用法规的合规性发生变更;

(3)广告主的许可证或其他Google“赌博和游戏”认证的合规要求发生变更。

注意:根据更新的政策,广告主的地址或者支付方式的变更不被视为实质性变更。

如果发生实质性变更,却未申请重新认证,将会被认定为违反“规避系统“。通常情况下,对于违反政策的广告主,Google会在中止账号至少7天前,通过账号内通知或者电子邮件通知其违规原因和申诉链接。而违反“规避系统”政策属于严重违规行为,因其构成违法或对Google用户会造成严重损害以至于Google无法承担未来向用户展示该广告主的广告所产生的风险。Google一旦检测到此类行为,会立即中止相应账号,而不事先发出警告,并且将无法再次通过Google投放广告。

PART 3

合规建议

Google审核的信息来源非常广泛,包括广告、账号和内容、用户投诉、消费者评价、监管机构发出的警告和做出的裁决来检测违反政策的行为,对于此次更新,建议具有赌博和游戏认证的广告主对自身账号存在的变更进行自查,避免因政策不合规导致商业损失:

(1)仔细核对自身获得的认证与宣传广告是否符合,Google Ads对线下赌博、在线赌博有不同认证。

(2)密切关注广告所在地区的法律对赌博的限制规定,及时根据最新法律对广告内容进行调整,了解特定类型的赌博广告在哪些国家或地区可以投放。

(3)目前Google对私营持照经营机构、社交类赌场游戏经营机构以及在只允许国营实体经营赌博业务的国家/地区经营的经营机构,有不同的申请认证方法,请广告主对自身取得的认证进行仔细核对。另外,对不同国家或地区进行宣传,需要分别提交申请。

分享文章

相关文章

General

【Weekly Gaming Law】Lawyers Comment on miHoYo’s Anti-Fraud Actions; Infringing “Reskinned” Game Ordered to Pay RMB 5 Million

【每周游戏法】律师评米哈游反舞弊;侵权游卡被判赔500万

This weekly update examines three recent legal developments in the gaming industry: miHoYo’s anti-fraud enforcement and supplier blacklist measures; a “reskin” infringement case involving a Three Kingdoms-themed card game resulting in a RMB 5 million damages award based on unfair competition; and Roblox’s launch of AI-powered interactive content generation tools. The article outlines the legal considerations arising from supply chain compliance, the boundary between public domain materials and protectable game design, and the intellectual property and compliance implications of AI-generated interactive content within UGC platforms.

1 views
General

How to Build Official Game Payment Systems in a Compliant Manner (Part II): Overseas

游戏官方支付如何合规搭建(二)海外篇

Against the backdrop of a global economic slowdown and evolving regulatory scrutiny over major app distribution platforms, an increasing number of overseas-oriented game companies are exploring the establishment of official website top-up platforms to reduce reliance on channel commissions. Building on the prior discussion of platform policies regarding payment redirection and third-party payment access, this article reviews practical cases of official website payment models adopted by several game companies, including their login mechanisms, purchasable content, regional availability, and qualification disclosures. Based on these practices, it outlines compliance considerations that overseas game companies should focus on when constructing official website payment systems, particularly in relation to account management, price display, promotional methods, and refund policy design across different jurisdictions.

6 views
General

EU’s DMA Enforcement Push: Apple and Epic Games Reach Temporary Truce

欧盟DMA强监管,苹果与Epic Games暂时握手言和

Since 2020, Apple and Epic Games have been locked in a global antitrust dispute over App Store policies. While Epic lost its U.S. lawsuit, it continued its resistance through noncompliance, resulting in a developer account ban. However, the dynamics shifted with the EU Digital Markets Act (DMA) coming into force on March 6, 2024. Epic reported that Apple, under pressure from the European Commission, agreed to reinstate its developer account in the EU. The DMA’s provisions, especially Article 5(3) and Article 6(4), require gatekeepers like Apple to allow third-party app stores and payment systems on iOS. Apple’s attempt to ban Epic amid DMA implementation triggered regulatory attention, leading to rapid Commission intervention. This incident not only highlights the DMA’s enforcement teeth but also signals a broader shift in platform governance within the EU. For global developers and digital exporters, especially those dependent on app store distribution, DMA compliance represents a strategic inflection point. Non-compliance risks include fines of up to 10–20% of global turnover, exemplified by the €1.84 billion fine Apple recently faced. As more third-party app stores (e.g., Mobivention, MacPaw) emerge, the EU’s digital market is poised for structural transformation.

5 views