What ad copy errors cause disapprovals?

How Google decides an ad is “disapproved” (and why the reason matters)

When an ad is disapproved, it means it can’t serve because something in the ad itself, the assets attached to it (like sitelinks/callouts), or the destination (final URL/landing page experience) fails a requirement. In practice, disapprovals fall into two buckets: editorial issues (the copy is formatted in a way that looks unprofessional or confusing) and policy issues (the copy makes a claim, implies an offer, or references a topic that isn’t allowed, isn’t supported, or requires special restrictions/certification).

This distinction is important because the fastest fix depends on it. Editorial disapprovals are usually solved by rewriting a few characters. Policy disapprovals often require aligning your ad language with what’s actually on the landing page (or removing restricted language entirely). And some “copy-looking” disapprovals are actually destination problems, like domain mismatches or crawler errors.

Ad copy errors that trigger editorial disapprovals (the “fix it in the text” category)

1) Excessive or gimmicky capitalization

One of the most common self-inflicted disapprovals is “shouty” capitalization. Full caps (“FREE QUOTE TODAY”), random mid-word caps (“BeSt PrIcE”), or stylized dot-separated words (“F.R.E.E.”) can get flagged because they reduce readability and look spammy. If unusual capitalization is genuinely part of a trademark or brand styling, you may need to standardize it across your destination and then request a review rather than forcing it into every headline.

2) Incorrect or attention-grabbing punctuation, symbols, or unsupported characters

Repeated punctuation (“!!”), decorative characters (like bullets or asterisks used as decoration), or “fake letters” (like “fl@wers” or “f1owers”) can trigger disapproval because they’re considered gimmicks rather than meaning. Unsupported characters are also a frequent culprit—most notably emojis. The safest path is to use punctuation only where it changes meaning, and to keep symbols functional (for example, a legitimate star rating context) rather than decorative.

3) Repetition (especially across headlines, descriptions, and assets)

Responsive Search Ads tempt people into repeating the same phrase everywhere: in multiple headlines, in descriptions, and again in callouts. That can lead to “repetition” disapprovals, and even when it doesn’t, it lowers quality because your ad stops adding new information. Think of each headline/asset as a unique “job”: one for the primary value proposition, one for proof, one for the offer, one for the qualifier (service area, turnaround time, etc.).

4) Style, spelling, and “doesn’t make sense” copy

Copy that’s clearly misspelled, grammatically broken, or reads like gibberish can get disapproved. So can overly generic text that could apply to literally any advertiser, and certain “presentation styles” that look out of place in search results—like formatting that resembles a bulleted list or a generic “CLICK HERE” type call-to-action. If you’re using a coined product name with nonstandard spelling, make sure it appears consistently on the landing page and be prepared to request a review if it’s flagged.

5) Unacceptable spacing

Missing spaces (“Sale,buy now”) and gimmicky spacing (“f r e e q u o t e”) are disapproval magnets. Spacing issues often sneak in via pasted promo copy, odd tracking tokens, or dynamic keyword insertion patterns that weren’t tested across variations.

6) Phone numbers placed directly in ad text

Putting a phone number in a headline or description can be disallowed as an editorial issue. If calls matter, use the correct format for calling features (rather than forcing the number into text). If your brand name includes a phone-like string, that’s a special case that typically requires review.

7) Business name issues (especially after verification)

For formats that include a business name field, a common error is treating the business name like another headline. Using promotional language (“Best Price Plumbing”), generic location-stuffing, or a name that doesn’t match your verified business identity can trigger disapprovals. After advertiser verification, the naming rules get tighter—so this can show up “suddenly” in accounts that used to skate by.

8) Unidentified business (the ad doesn’t clearly say who/what it’s for)

Some advertisers try to be “clever” and write vague teaser ads that don’t name the product, service, or entity being promoted. That can get flagged because users (and reviewers) should be able to understand what’s being advertised without guessing. Make sure at least one part of the ad clearly identifies the offering and aligns with the display/final URL brand.

Ad copy errors that trigger policy disapprovals (the “your claims and topic are the issue” category)

1) Unreliable claims and “improbable results” language

If your copy promises outcomes that sound unrealistic or “too good to be true,” you’re inviting a disapproval—even if you believe the outcome is technically possible. This gets especially strict in health and weight loss contexts (for example, miracle cures or extreme loss claims with little effort). The fix is to rewrite from outcome-hype to process-and-proof: clarify what you do, who it’s for, what the user can reasonably expect, and what conditions apply.

2) Clickbait, sensationalism, and fear-based pressure tactics

Headlines designed purely to shock, scare, or bait clicks are a common policy tripwire. Copy that exploits negative life events (like illness, arrests, accidents, bankruptcy, death) to pressure immediate action is particularly risky. If you’re in a legitimate service category that touches sensitive topics (legal help, debt help, emergency services), keep the tone factual and supportive—not manipulative.

3) Misleading representation (who you are, what you’re affiliated with, and what you’re qualified to do)

Ads can be disapproved when they make misleading statements—or omit material information—about identity, affiliations, or qualifications. Common examples include implying government affiliation when you’re a private company, implying endorsement you don’t have, or using language that suggests licensing/credentials that aren’t true or aren’t clearly supported on the destination. This category is also where “business name doesn’t clearly represent the advertised business” can become more than an editorial issue.

4) Unclear relevance and unavailable offers

Two copy mistakes that look harmless but cause constant disapprovals are (a) promising something the landing page doesn’t clearly support and (b) advertising an offer that users can’t easily find once they click. “50% Off Today” is fine only if the user lands on a page where the discount is real, visible, and straightforward to access. If the landing page is generic, hides the offer behind multiple clicks, or shows a different product than the ad implies, you can get flagged.

5) Dishonest pricing impressions

Pricing copy is a major compliance trigger. If you advertise “$0 down,” “From $19,” “Free,” or any price/fee framing that creates a misleading impression of total cost, you risk disapproval—especially when fees, subscriptions, minimums, shipping, mandatory add-ons, or billing models aren’t clearly disclosed. The safest approach is to qualify pricing (“From,” “Starting at,” “With approved credit,” “Conditions apply”) and ensure the destination explains the full payment model plainly.

6) Prohibited or restricted topics referenced directly in the ad text

Sometimes the “error” is simply using the wrong word. Mentioning certain products, services, or behaviors can trigger disapproval because the topic is prohibited, restricted, or requires eligibility checks. Classic examples include tobacco and tobacco-related products, recreational drugs, weapons-related items, and content that promotes hate, harassment, or violence. Even if your business is legitimate, a single keyword can push you into a restricted bucket or block serving entirely.

In regulated verticals, the copy can be the compliance gate. For example, using prescription drug terms is heavily restricted in many locations, and eligibility may require certification (and often additional third-party credentialing depending on the category). If you’re operating in healthcare, financial services, or other sensitive categories, build your copy around compliant service descriptions rather than regulated terms until you’ve confirmed your account’s eligibility and completed any required verification.

7) Trademarks used in ad text (especially after a complaint)

Trademark issues are one of the most misunderstood causes of “Approved (limited)” and disapprovals. Using a competitor’s trademark in ad text can be restricted when it’s used by a direct competitor or used in a confusing or misleading way. On the other hand, trademark usage may be allowed in certain contexts, such as when you’re genuinely selling or facilitating the sale of the trademarked product and your landing page makes that relationship clear (including whether you’re a reseller vs. an informational site). If you’re flagged, the fix is usually a combination of tightening the ad language and clarifying the landing page intent—not just swapping one word.

Destination-related disapprovals that often get mistaken for “ad copy errors”

1) Destination mismatch (display URL vs. final URL vs. tracking)

If the domain shown in the ad doesn’t match where the user actually lands, you can get disapproved for mismatch. This also happens when tracking templates or expanded URLs take users to different content than the final URL suggests. The practical lesson: keep your visible domain consistent, avoid unnecessary cross-domain hops, and make sure tracking doesn’t silently redirect to a different domain.

2) Destination not working, not crawlable, or not accessible

Your site can look “fine” in your browser but still fail for automated crawlers. Common causes include intermittent server errors, bot blocks, geo restrictions that prevent access in targeted locations, requiring scripts/cookies that block rendering, or returning error codes to crawlers on common devices. If Google’s systems can’t reliably load the destination, the ad can’t run—no matter how perfect the copy is.

3) Poor destination experience or insufficient original content

Even when the page loads, it can be disapproved if it’s unnecessarily difficult to navigate, initiates direct downloads unexpectedly, leads to files/emails instead of a normal web experience, includes abusive experiences, or appears to exist primarily to show ads or shuttle users elsewhere without unique value. When advertisers try to “pre-sell” aggressively in ad copy but send traffic to thin, confusing, or placeholder pages, disapprovals become a recurring cycle.

A practical workflow to find the exact copy error and fix it fast

If you want speed and consistency (especially across larger accounts), treat disapprovals like a short diagnostic routine rather than trial-and-error rewriting.

• Read the exact policy label attached to the ad (don’t guess). Many issues that look like “editorial” are actually misrepresentation, unavailable offers, or destination mismatch.
• Confirm what was reviewed: the specific headlines/descriptions, any assets (callouts, snippets, sitelinks), the business name field (if present), and the final URL including tracking.
• For editorial issues, fix the smallest trigger first: remove extra punctuation, normalize capitalization, remove emojis/unsupported characters, repair spacing, and de-duplicate repeated phrases across assets.
• For claims/offer issues, align ad and landing page: rewrite absolute promises into qualified, verifiable statements; ensure the offer is visible and easily found; and remove “improbable result” language.
• For regulated terms, simplify until eligible: strip restricted terminology from ad text unless you’ve completed any required certification/verification for that category and location.
• For destination issues, test like a crawler: check for redirects to different domains, bot-blocking, geo-blocking, intermittent server errors, and pages that don’t render without heavy scripts.
• Resubmit or appeal only after changes: once compliant, resubmission typically triggers re-review; if you believe it’s a mistake, use the appeal workflow so the ad can be reviewed again under the right context.

The biggest long-term win is building a simple internal “copy QA standard” before ads go live: one capitalization style, one punctuation style, no decorative characters, no exaggerated outcomes, and every offer backed by an obvious landing page proof point. That one discipline prevents the majority of avoidable disapprovals I see across both small and enterprise accounts.

Ad copy disapprovals in Google Ads are often triggered by avoidable editorial and policy missteps, such as excessive or gimmicky capitalization, repeated punctuation or decorative symbols (including unsupported characters), repeated messaging across headlines/descriptions, spelling or “nonsensical” copy, unacceptable spacing, phone numbers placed directly in ad text, business name field misuse, or ads that don’t clearly identify who’s being advertised; beyond wording, disapprovals can also come from policy-sensitive claims (unreliable “too good to be true” results, clickbait/fear-based pressure, misleading affiliations, unclear offers or incomplete pricing) and even destination issues like URL mismatches or landing pages that aren’t crawlable or don’t provide enough original value. If you want a faster way to keep ads aligned with both performance and policy expectations, Blobr connects to your Google Ads account and runs specialized AI agents—like its Ad Copy Rewriter and Headlines Enhancer—to review existing assets, check landing-page alignment, and suggest compliant, ready-to-implement copy updates without having to comb through every ad manually.