Why a Diabetes-Program Page Sits in Two Policy Zones
Most editorial reviews treat accuracy as a single question. Google's publisher content policies split it. Health-outcome copy falls under unreliable and harmful claims, which bars ads on content promoting harmful health claims or contradicting authoritative scientific consensus. Enrollment incentives fall under deceptive behavior, which bars promoting services through false or deceptive information. A diabetes-program page usually carries both, so one pass will not resolve it: the same call-to-action button often sits beside an outcome claim.
Build the Claim Inventory Before Editing
Collect every sentence stating an outcome, authority, price, eligibility rule, or time frame — including headline variants, testimonial screenshots, badge graphics, image alt text, form microcopy, and meta descriptions. Number each line and quote it verbatim. A numbered list stops the common failure where body copy is softened but the original phrasing survives in a graphic. It also records why a line was cut when a reviewer asks.
Remove Harmful Health Claims Rather Than Soften Them
Softening the verb rarely resolves an outcome claim, because the category targets the claim, not its intensity. Deleting is safer when the page cannot support the statement with an authoritative source; adding a citation does not cure copy that has no authoritative basis behind it. The policy also covers content contradicting authoritative scientific consensus during a current significant health crisis, so the standard can move with events rather than stay fixed at publication. That makes a one-time sign-off weak; keep removed lines in the log so the decision stays auditable.
Endorsement Wording Is Its Own Violation
Misleading statements form a separate category. The policy prohibits distorting or concealing information about the publisher, content creator, content purpose, or the content itself, and prohibits falsely implying association with, or endorsement by, others. On program pages this surfaces as "medically reviewed," "partner clinic," "endorsed," and logo walls, even around mild claims. The test is not whether the claim is modest but whether the relationship exists and is described accurately. If it cannot be documented, remove it.
Sort Offers by Strike Weight
Offers need their own pass because violation weight varies. Google's violation framework separates a normal tier — five violations to one strike — from an egregious tier where one violation produces one strike. Egregious examples include concrete, explicitly stated promises that cannot be fulfilled: free or cash offers, unreasonably cheap offers, promises of loans or admission, and specific promises outside the publisher's control. The normal tier covers vague promises and specific information provided but not delivered. So a "free enrollment kit" outranks "learn about local options" in remediation order. Fix the one-strike lines first, even when they appear in fewer places: one egregious sentence can outweigh five ordinary ones.
Map Claim Types to Their Policy Categories
| Claim or page element | Policy category (verified) | Prohibited element in retrieved text | Evidence page |
|---|
| Outcome or "reverses diabetes" promise | Unreliable and harmful claims | Harmful health claims; contradiction of authoritative scientific consensus | answer/10502938 |
| "Medically reviewed," "partner clinic," implied endorsement | Misleading statements | Falsely implying association with or endorsement by others | answer/10502938 |
| "Free program," cash incentive, "guaranteed covered" | Deceptive behavior; egregious tier | Concrete, explicitly stated impossible-to-fulfill promises, including free or cash offers | answer/10502938; answer/14638581 |
| "Top diabetes doctors near you" with no list | Deceptive behavior; normal tier | Specific information provided but not delivered (5 violations = 1 strike) | answer/14638581 |
| Selling or refilling prescription diabetes medication | Publisher restriction: prescription drugs | Facilitating the online sale of prescription drugs | answer/10437795 |
| Supplement pitched as glucose control | Publisher restriction: unapproved drugs and supplements | Promoting unapproved products containing active drug or dangerous ingredients | answer/10437795 |
| Referring ad that overstates the landing page | Traffic source requirements | Promising products, services, or promotions absent or hard to find on the landing page | answer/14638581 |
The first four rows attach to page copy; the last three follow from what the page sells and how traffic reaches it.
Restricted Categories Cut Ad Demand
Prescription drugs and unapproved drugs and supplements are restricted rather than prohibited content. The prescription category targets content facilitating online sale of prescription drugs; the supplement category targets unapproved products, including those on Google's unapproved drugs and supplements list, ephedra-containing products, and herbal or dietary supplements with active drug or dangerous ingredients. Restricted pages can still be monetized, but Google states they are likely to receive fewer ads, and Google Ads text ads will not serve against a restriction label. Keep that check separate from the claim pass; merging them hides the revenue question.
Match the Referring Ad, Then Sign Off
Traffic-source rules extend compliance beyond the landing page: the source must accurately describe the landing-page content and must not promise products, services, or promotions absent there or hard to find. Close with a four-state checklist per inventory line — removed, reworded, substantiated, escalated — plus a date and owner. Escalate rather than decide alone when a line needs clinical judgment. Two further rules keep the sign-off honest: clicks must come from genuinely interested users, with no clicking your own ads and no manual inflation of impressions or clicks, which makes team testing through a live ad a compliance decision; and the sensitive-event concept means enforcement posture can shift when Google judges it cannot supply quality, relevant information and truth.
What This Review Cannot Decide
This is a publisher-policy audit, not medical or legal advice. No clinical review was performed, and nothing here establishes efficacy, eligibility, pricing, or program status. US health-marketing regulation sat outside the material reviewed here. Restriction outcomes are described by Google as likely reductions in ad demand, not guaranteed account results. Re-verify current wording on the linked policy pages before acting, and route copy needing clinical substantiation to someone qualified to judge it.
研究の知恵