Google’s offer is best understood as a proposed remedy, not a published new spam rule. Reuters reported in May 2026 that Alphabet’s Google had offered to change a spam policy criticized by publishers, citing a European Commission document, in a move that could help it avoid an EU antitrust fine.[1][
2] The policy at issue is Google’s “site reputation abuse” rule, and the cited public reports do not provide a detailed list of the operational changes Google would make.
The short answer: reported tweaks, not a fully disclosed rewrite
The clearest public answer is that Google has reportedly offered concessions tied to how its “site reputation abuse” policy is applied to publishers. Reports describe the offer as including tweaks to rules that affect how news publishers host third-party content[20] and, in some accounts, changes to how news content is ranked or displayed in Google Search.[
19][
21]
That is as precise as the available evidence allows. The cited reports do not say whether Google would change ranking thresholds, create exemptions for certain publisher partnerships, alter enforcement penalties, add a new review process, or expand appeals. They also do not show that Google has proposed scrapping the anti-spam policy altogether.[1][
2][
20][
21]
What is “site reputation abuse”?
Google’s site reputation abuse policy targets the practice of publishing third-party pages on a site in an attempt to abuse search rankings by taking advantage of the host site’s ranking signals, a tactic commonly referred to as “parasite SEO.”[2][
14]
That framing explains why Google treats the rule as an anti-spam measure. The controversy is that publishers say enforcement can also hit legitimate commercial arrangements, such as partner or sponsored content that helps monetize media sites. The European Commission said its monitoring indicated that Google was demoting news media and other publishers’ websites and content in Search when those websites included content from commercial partners.[18]
Why the EU opened a DMA case
Google Search is one of Alphabet’s designated core platform services under the Digital Markets Act.[17] On November 13, 2025, the European Commission opened formal proceedings to assess whether Google applies fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory conditions of access to publishers’ websites on Google Search, as required under the DMA.[
18]
The Commission’s concern is not simply whether Google can fight spam. It is whether a gatekeeper platform can apply an anti-spam policy in a way that unfairly restricts publishers’ visibility, monetization, or ability to work with commercial partners.[18] TechCrunch reported that the Commission said the policy appeared to directly affect a common and legitimate way for publishers to monetize their websites and content.[
7]
What remains unknown
Three important details remain unresolved:
- The exact remedy text. The public reports say Google offered changes or concessions, but they do not reproduce the full proposal.[
1][
2][
20]
- Whether the Commission will accept the offer. Reports say the proposal could help Google stave off a DMA fine, but that does not mean the case has been settled.[
1][
2]
- How publishers should adjust. Until Google or the Commission publishes concrete rules, publishers do not yet have a confirmed playbook for how third-party commercial content will be treated under any revised policy.
Why it matters for publishers and search teams
If accepted, Google’s proposal could shape how anti-spam enforcement is balanced against publisher business models in EU Search. The stakes are high because reports describe the case as a potential DMA fine matter, with one report noting that failure to settle could expose Alphabet to penalties of up to 10% of global revenue.[21]
For now, the practical takeaway is narrow: Google has reportedly offered unspecified changes to how its “site reputation abuse” spam policy affects publishers, likely connected to the ranking or display of publisher pages that carry third-party commercial content. The central caveat is just as important: the exact changes have not been publicly detailed in the cited reports.
