Google Ads disapproved for Compromised Site and Circumventing Systems—even after you completely rebuild your website? I recently documented a case where a music-marketing agency spent nearly a year trying to run Search ads to its own website. Its ads were repeatedly disapproved under both policies. My team at AARSWEBS helped the client address the case in less than 10 days after we became involved.
Watch the full video case study, including the disapproval history, audit findings, support response and client feedback.
In this article, I’ll explain what the client had already tried, what we found in the website audit, how we approached Google’s policy review, and which lessons other advertisers can apply. This is a case of ad disapprovals, not evidence that the entire account was suspended. Those outcomes must not be confused.
The backstory: almost a year of failed Google Ads appeals
The business helped musicians grow loyal fan communities and monetize their audiences. Search ads promoting its services had repeatedly received Compromised Site and Circumventing Systems notices. According to the client’s account, some other advertising activity remained possible, but ads leading to its own service pages were not approved.
Before approaching us, the client had filed multiple appeals, experimented with new Google Ads accounts, and rebuilt its website using custom code after previously using Squarespace. Yet the same website-related disapprovals appeared again. This demonstrated why changing a website platform or duplicating campaigns cannot be assumed to resolve a policy issue. Trying new accounts to evade enforcement can itself present policy risks.
What the two Google Ads policy errors mean
1. Compromised Site
Google’s Compromised sites policy concerns a website or destination whose code has been manipulated without the owner’s knowledge, often in ways that benefit another party or harm users. Examples include injected scripts, malicious redirects, unauthorized data collection and exploited website vulnerabilities. It deserves a genuine technical security investigation.
2. Circumventing Systems
Google’s Circumventing systems policy prohibits attempts to interfere with advertising review or enforcement, including cloaking and certain forms of multiple-account abuse. It is a separate policy and can have serious account-level consequences. In the case shown in my video, the documented issue was the repeated disapproval of ads.
Important: Seeing these labels does not establish that every issue found during a website audit was the proven cause. Investigative findings and Google’s confirmed enforcement reasons should be kept distinct.
Our audit: the issues we found on the music-marketing website
Rather than simply submitting another appeal, we inspected the affected destination and the surrounding website. In the recorded walkthrough I showed several findings:
- Contact page accessibility: one crawl returned a 404 response for the contact page. We investigated the availability and loading behavior rather than assuming the page was healthy.
- Case-study credibility: some marketing performance figures appeared questionable or unclear, so the content needed review and substantiation.
- Aggressive claims: landing-page language included ambitious performance or earnings statements that required better evidence or more careful wording.
- Refund and cancellation disclosure: a clearly linked public refund/cancellation policy could not initially be found.
- Website content and navigation: service pages, course-related content, membership information and other destinations needed changes to wording, layout or linking.
- Technical errors: we reviewed broken links, canonical signals, code issues, and website behavior relevant to accessibility and consistency.
Some of these findings are general website trust or usability concerns, rather than evidence of malware. The video does not establish that malicious code was found, so I would not present this as a confirmed malware-removal case.
Security checks and website corrections
Because the domain also had a Compromised Site disapproval, we performed security-oriented checks alongside the content audit. These included reviewing suspicious code or scripts, possible unsafe behavior and the website’s accessibility. We then cross-checked corrections and reviewed the pages again to see whether the reported problems remained.
We revised selected content, helped improve the main and contact pages, reviewed policy information and checked technical issues. The purpose was to address genuine risks and give Google’s review team a more accurate picture of a functioning business website—not to hide content from the reviewer.
Why we used Google Search Console
After website changes, we used Google Search Console to inspect and request recrawling of relevant URLs. This is useful when Google may still have older versions of pages indexed. But it is important to get the distinction right: requesting indexing in Search Console does not itself clear Google Ads policy disapprovals, nor does it guarantee crawling within 24–48 hours. Google’s URL Inspection documentation explains that crawling and indexing can take longer and are not guaranteed.
After the changes and inspection requests, we followed up through the appropriate Google Ads Support channel. The support email shown in the video confirmed that the domain had been cleared on Google’s side of the identified malvertising concerns, with additional time needed for system synchronization. The client subsequently reported a successful outcome.
The outcome: resolved in less than 10 days after we started
The client had been struggling for about a year before contacting our team. After the website review, corrective actions and communication with Google, we helped resolve the case in less than 10 days. The client later left a positive five-star review highlighting our communication, repeated audits and assistance.
This is one client’s documented experience, not a standard approval timeline or a guarantee for other advertisers.
My checklist if you face both policy labels
- Confirm whether the issue is an ad-level disapproval, destination restriction or account suspension.
- Read the specific policy details inside Google Ads and keep a record of past appeals.
- Audit the full destination: crawlability, redirects, contact pages, links and scripts.
- Investigate website security without assuming a security breach has already been proven.
- Make business information, service claims and public policies accurate and easy to verify.
- Test all changed pages on mobile and desktop; use Search Console to inspect updated URLs when relevant.
- Submit a coherent review or support request explaining genuine corrections made; avoid creating new accounts to bypass enforcement.
- Monitor the account’s Policy Manager and obtain written confirmation of the review outcome.
Final thoughts
Persistent disapprovals usually call for careful diagnosis, evidence and a documented remediation process, not repeated campaign duplication. Every domain and Google Ads account is different; finding the actual problem takes precedence over promising a quick turnaround.
For professional assistance, see AARSWEBS Google Ads disapproval and suspension support. You can also read my Google Ads audit checklist to prepare your own initial review.
Case-study note: Details are shared from the published walkthrough and client-reported outcome. Approval is determined by Google and cannot be guaranteed by any service provider.
