Google’s August 30 change is a geographically limited rollback of a specific enforcement tool, not abandonment of its anti-spam policy. Manual “site reputation abuse” demotions will no longer apply to searches shown to users in the European Economic Area (EEA); they remain in force elsewhere. 
2
What changed and where: From August 30, Google will not apply manual actions under this policy to users in the EEA—the 27 EU countries plus Iceland, Liechtenstein, and Norway. The relevant point is the user’s search location, not simply where the publisher is based. 2
What “parasite SEO” means: Google calls it “site reputation abuse”: placing third-party content on an established website chiefly to exploit that host’s existing ranking signals, so the content ranks better than it would on its own domain. “Parasite SEO” is the industry term for that piggybacking tactic. 
14
Why it drew objections: Publishers argued that the policy’s broad application treated legitimate partner, commercial, and third-party material on reputable news sites as manipulation, producing severe visibility losses even where the host exercised editorial oversight or the material served a legitimate audience. The Commission’s monitoring found indications that Google might not be providing publishers fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory access to Search, and opened DMA proceedings on that basis. 
56
Why Google changed course: The move is designed to reduce the immediate risk of an adverse DMA decision in the publisher-access investigation. A DMA infringement can carry a fine of up to 10% of a company’s worldwide annual turnover—up to 20% for repeat infringements—plus possible periodic penalty payments. 
3
Relationship to the other penalties: This is separate from the Commission’s July 2026 €890 million DMA fine, which covered Google’s self-preferencing in Search and restrictions affecting app developers’ ability to steer users to alternative purchase channels. 
1 It is also legally distinct from the now-final €4.1 billion Android antitrust fine, upheld after Google’s challenge; that case concerned Android-related conduct, not the DMA publisher-ranking investigation. 4
Practical two-track outcome:
- Inside the EEA: a site-reputation-abuse manual demotion should not be imposed in results served to EEA users. That does not necessarily mean all forms of spam detection or ordinary ranking systems disappear. 2
- Outside the EEA: Google’s existing manual-action approach continues, so the same third-party content may be manually demoted for users outside the EEA. 2
- Result: search visibility can diverge by region: content suppressed through this manual policy elsewhere may remain more visible in EEA-facing results. This is an interim compliance posture, not a conclusion that Google violated the DMA; the Commission still must decide whether the change is sufficient or whether further changes are required. 56
