Back to Intelligence Hub
platform-policyGlobalRisk Level: high
Google Ads 2025 Transparency Report April 2026 — 8.3 Billion Ads Blocked, Gemini Enforcement Shift & Bad Ads Over Bad Actors Strategy
Google's 2025 Ads Safety Report published April 2026 shows 8.3 billion ads blocked globally — up from 5.1 billion in 2024 — while advertiser account suspensions declined. The shift signals a strategic pivot toward Gemini-powered ad-level detection instead of account-level enforcement, with material implications for legitimate advertisers miscategorized as bad actors.
Quick Answer
Google's 2025 Ads Safety Report (published April 2026) shows 8.3 billion ads blocked globally — up from 5.1 billion in 2024 — while advertiser account suspensions declined. The shift signals a strategic pivot toward Gemini-powered ad-level detection over account-level enforcement, with material implications for legitimate advertisers miscategorized as bad actors.
Headline Findings of the 2025 Report
Google's 2025 Ads Safety Report, published in April 2026, reported 8.3 billion ads blocked or removed globally in 2025 — a substantial increase from 5.1 billion in 2024. Google framed the enforcement volume increase as a signal of expanded detection capability supported by Gemini-family AI models rather than as a signal of growing bad-actor population. The report claimed AI-driven systems caught more than 99 percent of policy-violating ads before user exposure, positioning proactive detection as the dominant enforcement mode.
The advertiser account suspension figure decreased in relative terms compared with the ad blocking volume increase. Google suspended fewer advertiser accounts in 2025 than the ad blocking volume increase would suggest under the previous account-level enforcement approach. The report framed the disparity as increased precision in distinguishing individual violating ads from systemically bad advertisers — targeting bad ads rather than bad actors where ad-level remediation suffices.
Per Google's 2025 Ads Safety Report (published April 2026), advances in AI — particularly its Gemini family of models — let it detect and block policy-violating ads with greater precision and earlier in the process, with over 99% of such ads caught before being shown to users.
Bad Ads Over Bad Actors — Strategic Shift
The 2025 report signals a strategic shift in Google's enforcement approach from account-level action against bad actors toward ad-level precision against bad ads. The shift has meaningful implications for legitimate advertisers operating across multiple campaign categories, particularly those with occasional policy issues or operating in sensitive verticals.
Implication Comparison
| Dimension | Previous Approach | 2025–2026 Approach |
|---|---|---|
| Violation response | Account-level suspension risk escalates with violation history | Ad-level enforcement preferred where remediation suffices |
| Account suspension | Elevated risk for advertisers with any violation pattern | Reserved for systemic bad actors and egregious cases |
| Detection precision | Pattern matching missed nuance and sophisticated variations | Gemini-powered semantic understanding catches nuance |
| Enforcement timing | Primarily at submission with periodic sweeps | Continuous throughout campaign lifecycle |
| Advertiser burden | Account-level risk concentrated compliance attention | Ad-level precision distributes attention across all campaigns |
Legitimate advertisers benefit from reduced account-level risk on occasional violations but face increased ad-level scrutiny across all campaigns. The shift does not reduce overall compliance burden — it redistributes compliance attention from account-level concentration to distributed ad-level attention. For Google Ads policy compliance review see the Google Ads Policy Guide.
Gemini-Powered Enforcement Capability
Gemini-powered enforcement represents a material capability advance over previous automated review systems. Understanding the capability differences supports advertiser compliance adaptation and accurate interpretation of enforcement actions.
Capability Differences
- Semantic understanding: Models understand content meaning rather than pattern matching against known violation templates.
- Contextual analysis: Detection evaluates ad content alongside landing page, targeting configuration, and advertiser context.
- Sophisticated variation recognition: Models catch novel variations of known violation patterns that rule-based systems miss.
- Implied claim detection: Models identify implied claims that avoid explicit prohibited language while conveying prohibited meaning.
- Continuous evaluation: Detection runs throughout campaign lifecycle rather than only at submission.
- Cross-format coverage: Unified capability handles video, carousel, shopping, and other complex ad formats with consistent enforcement.
Advertiser Implications
- End-to-end compliance: Compliance must extend across ad, landing page, targeting, and advertiser context — optimizing only ad creative is insufficient.
- Nuance awareness: Compliance teams should develop understanding of policy nuance that generic rule application misses.
- Continuous monitoring: Campaigns face enforcement during delivery, requiring ongoing monitoring rather than only at launch.
- Creative evolution: Creative that historically passed review may face enforcement under Gemini-powered detection, requiring creative adaptation.
For end-to-end compliance review including landing page evaluation use the AI Compliance Audit.
Policy Category Enforcement Breakdown
The 2025 report enforcement breakdown identifies policy categories with highest enforcement volume, providing signal about Google's priorities and the compliance areas where advertisers face highest enforcement probability.
Top Categories
| Category | Focus Areas | Advertiser Priority |
|---|---|---|
| Misrepresentation and deceptive practice | Scams, impersonation, misleading claims, fake urgency | Critical for all advertisers; concentrated in financial services |
| Personal attributes and sensitive interest | Targeting or implying knowledge of sensitive personal attributes | Critical for health, financial services, sensitive vertical advertisers |
| Trademark and IP | Unauthorized brand use, protected creative assets, counterfeits | Critical for comparative advertising and reseller categories |
| Restricted and prohibited categories | Firearms, drugs, gambling without certification, adult content | Critical for restricted vertical advertisers |
| Political and election | Political content transparency, election advertiser verification | Critical for political advertisers; expanded to Shopping Ads April 2026 |
| Health advertising | Health claims, medical services, pharmaceutical restrictions | Critical for healthcare and wellness advertisers |
Advertisers should assess their category profile against enforcement priorities and invest compliance resources proportionate to category risk. For vertical-specific compliance see our Financial Services Compliance and Healthcare Compliance guides.
New Ads Advisor Safety Features
Google announced three new Ads Advisor agentic safety features alongside the 2025 report, positioning them as advertiser-facing tools that support proactive compliance within the Gemini-powered enforcement environment.
Feature Overview
- Real-Time Policy Reviews: In-workflow policy guidance during ad creation and editing, surfacing potential concerns before submission and supporting creative adjustment in the creation flow.
- Security Insights Dashboard: 24/7 security monitoring with passkey authentication, surfacing unusual login patterns, payment method changes, and campaign modifications indicating potential account compromise.
- Instant Certifications: Gemini-powered certification process streamlining restricted category certification including gambling, pharmaceutical, and financial services verticals.
Advertiser Integration
- Creative workflow integration: Real-Time Policy Reviews integrate into creative workflow, reducing post-production compliance remediation.
- Security posture strengthening: Security Insights Dashboard enables early detection of account compromise and supports incident response.
- Regulated category onboarding: Instant Certifications reduce onboarding friction for legitimate advertisers in regulated categories.
For advertiser workflow integration and compliance automation use the AI Compliance Audit.
Advertiser Compliance Program Adaptation
Advertisers should adapt compliance programs to the Gemini-powered enforcement environment across pre-flight review, creative development, campaign monitoring, and organizational capability dimensions.
Adaptation Dimensions
- Pre-flight review sophistication: Address policy nuance, implied claims, contextual violations that simple rule-based tools miss; integrate AI-powered analysis with human review for edge cases.
- Creative development integration: Compliance review during creative assembly rather than as post-production gate; brief documents include compliance parameters.
- Continuous campaign monitoring: Placement reporting review for enforcement actions, pattern analysis for emerging issues, prompt response to enforcement notifications.
- Response capability: Internal workflow for rapid enforcement response, appeal infrastructure, documentation discipline supporting appeal success.
- Organizational capability: Compliance talent with policy category expertise, tooling for end-to-end review, process integration with creative and media planning workflows.
Investment Calibration
- Under-investment risk: Higher enforcement-related disruption that costs more than compliance investment saved.
- Over-investment risk: Excessive compliance caution restricting creative effectiveness.
- Balanced posture: Investment aligned with risk exposure, creative ambition, and advertiser category.
For comprehensive advertiser compliance framework use the AI Compliance Audit and the Legal Compliance Scan.
False Positive Risk and Appeals
Gemini-powered detection sophistication produces genuine enforcement accuracy improvement but also introduces new false positive patterns where legitimate advertising matches detection signals without representing actual violations. Advertisers should build appeal capability as a standing compliance infrastructure component.
False Positive Patterns
- Sensitive vertical creative: Financial services, health, and political-adjacent creative matches detection signals even when content is compliant.
- Contextual misinterpretation: Detection misreads context including landing page content or targeting configuration, producing false violations.
- Creative sophistication false positives: Sophisticated creative that works around known violation patterns sometimes triggers detection despite legitimate messaging.
- Language and cultural context: Non-English creative and creative rooted in specific cultural context may face higher false positive rates.
Appeal Infrastructure
- Documentation discipline: Maintain creative rationale, compliance analysis, and policy interpretation documentation supporting appeals.
- Workflow efficiency: Internal workflow enabling rapid appeal submission with supporting documentation.
- Pattern tracking: Track false positive patterns for ongoing dialogue with Google and for compliance process refinement.
- Escalation paths: For material or repeat false positives, escalation paths through Google channels or account management.
For compliance audit and pattern tracking use the AI Compliance Audit.
Google Ads Compliance Checklist
- [ ] Review 2025 Ads Safety Report findings and assess advertiser category exposure to enforcement priorities
- [ ] Update pre-flight review tooling with AI-powered detection capability addressing policy nuance
- [ ] Integrate compliance review into creative development workflow rather than post-production
- [ ] Establish continuous campaign monitoring for enforcement action and pattern analysis
- [ ] Build appeal infrastructure including documentation discipline and workflow efficiency
- [ ] Enable Real-Time Policy Reviews in Ads Advisor for in-workflow compliance guidance
- [ ] Activate Security Insights Dashboard with passkey authentication for account security
- [ ] Evaluate Instant Certifications for restricted category onboarding where applicable
- [ ] Invest in compliance talent with policy category expertise and strategic judgment capability
- [ ] Calibrate compliance investment against advertiser category risk exposure
- [ ] Track false positive patterns for dialogue with Google and compliance process refinement
Frequently Asked Questions
What are the headline findings of Google's 2025 Ads Safety Report published in April 2026?
Google's 2025 Ads Safety Report, published in April 2026, reported that Google blocked or removed 8.3 billion ads globally in 2025 — a substantial increase from 5.1 billion ads blocked in 2024 and from lower volumes in prior years. The report framed the enforcement volume increase as a signal of expanded detection capability rather than a signal of growing bad-actor population, reflecting Google's strategic use of Gemini-family AI models for ad-level detection at scale. The report claimed that Google's AI-driven systems caught more than 99 percent of policy-violating ads before the ads were shown to users, positioning proactive detection as the dominant enforcement mode relative to reactive response to user reports. The advertiser account suspension figure decreased in relative terms compared with the ad blocking volume increase. Google suspended fewer advertiser accounts in 2025 than the ad blocking volume increase would suggest under the previous account-level enforcement approach, with the report attributing the disparity to increased precision in distinguishing individual violating ads from systemically bad advertisers. The framing positions Google as targeting bad ads over bad actors — catching specific policy violations without necessarily terminating advertiser relationships where most campaigns comply. The enforcement category breakdown reveals concentration in specific policy areas. Misrepresentation and deceptive practice violations accounted for the largest category, reflecting continued enforcement focus on scams, impersonation, and misleading financial services advertising. Trademark violations and intellectual property infringement represented substantial volume. Personalized advertising restrictions and sensitive category violations (including health, political, and financial services) generated material volume. Restricted category violations (gambling, alcohol, adult) generated focused enforcement consistent with regulatory compliance posture. The report emphasized the role of Gemini family AI models in scaling enforcement capability. Google's ad policy enforcement systems use Gemini variants optimized for ad content analysis, enabling detection of policy nuance that previous automated systems could not identify while handling the volume of global ad submission. The Gemini capability supports the shift toward ad-level precision enforcement. For Google Ads policy compliance review see our Google Ads Policy Guide.
What does the shift from bad actors to bad ads mean for legitimate advertisers?
The strategic shift from bad-actor account-level enforcement to bad-ad precision enforcement has significant implications for legitimate advertisers, with both positive effects in reduced account-level risk and negative effects in increased ad-level scrutiny. Advertisers should understand the shift to adapt compliance approach and manage false positive risk appropriately. The positive effect is reduced account suspension risk for legitimate advertisers whose individual ads occasionally face policy enforcement. Under the previous account-level enforcement approach, advertisers with any policy violation history faced elevated risk of account suspension on subsequent violations, with the violation pattern being a major signal in suspension decisions. The shift to bad-ad precision enforcement reduces the account-level consequences of individual violations — an advertiser with mostly compliant campaigns and occasional policy issues is more likely to see specific violations addressed through ad removal rather than account-level action. This benefits advertisers whose compliance posture is strong in aggregate despite occasional specific issues. The negative effect is increased ad-level scrutiny producing more granular enforcement on individual ads. Gemini-powered detection identifies policy nuance that previous systems could not, resulting in more ad removals, more ad limitations, and more policy-driven ad modifications across all advertiser accounts. Legitimate advertisers see enforcement on ads that historically passed review, requiring continuous creative adaptation to the updated enforcement standards. The scrutiny increase is not selective against any specific advertiser category — it applies across all advertisers including major brands with sophisticated compliance operations. The false positive risk increases with detection sophistication. Gemini models identify patterns that previous systems missed, which includes both genuine violations and false positive patterns that superficially resemble violations. Legitimate advertisers in sensitive verticals — financial services, health, e-commerce with regulatory complexity, political adjacent — see higher false positive rates as detection systems apply pattern recognition that sometimes produces incorrect categorization. Advertisers should build internal processes for identifying false positives, appealing through Google's review mechanisms, and documenting pattern disputes for ongoing dialogue with Google. The compliance investment implication is substantial. Advertisers cannot rely on account-level safety assumption — even well-established accounts with strong history face ad-level enforcement across all campaigns. Pre-flight review becomes more important as ads face higher detection precision. Creative workflow integration with compliance review supports sustainable advertising operations under the updated enforcement regime. For advertiser compliance tooling see the AI Compliance Audit.
How does Gemini-powered ad enforcement differ from previous automated review?
Gemini-powered ad enforcement represents a material capability advance over previous automated review systems across detection sophistication, speed, scope, and contextual analysis dimensions. Advertisers should understand the capability differences to calibrate compliance practice and to interpret enforcement actions accurately. Detection sophistication differs substantially. Previous automated review systems used pattern matching, keyword detection, and image analysis tuned to specific known violation patterns. These systems caught obvious violations but missed sophisticated variations, novel patterns, and contextually dependent violations. Gemini-powered systems use general-capability AI models that understand content semantically, evaluate context, and recognize sophisticated variations of known violation patterns. The detection sophistication enables catching policy nuance including misleading framing that stops short of explicit prohibited claims, visual elements that work around image-based detection, implied claims that avoid explicit prohibited language, and creative sophistication that aggregates multiple permitted elements into an impermissible overall message. Speed advantage enables detection at upload and throughout campaign lifecycle. Previous systems applied detection primarily at ad submission with periodic sweeps against established patterns. Gemini-powered systems apply continuous analysis at scale, supporting detection during creative preview before live delivery, at live delivery initiation, and during ongoing delivery as patterns evolve. The speed enables catching violations before they reach users rather than detecting and removing after user exposure. Scope expansion addresses content types and contexts that previous systems handled poorly. Video ad content, carousel ads, shopping ad listings, and other complex ad formats required specialized detection systems that limited coverage. Gemini-powered detection handles complex ad formats with unified capability, extending coverage to ad formats that previously had looser enforcement. Contextual analysis enables catching violations that depend on ad-landing-page-content interaction, targeting-creative alignment, and advertiser-vertical context. Previous systems analyzed ad content in isolation, missing violations that required understanding the end-to-end advertising experience. Gemini-powered detection evaluates the context that determines whether ad content is compliant, including landing page content, targeting configuration, advertiser history, and vertical-specific compliance standards. Context-dependent enforcement produces more accurate results on nuanced cases while requiring advertisers to maintain compliance across the full advertising experience. The practical implication is that advertisers cannot optimize only the ad creative while neglecting landing pages or targeting — the enforcement system evaluates the full experience. For end-to-end compliance review including landing page evaluation, use the AI Compliance Audit.
What specific policy categories saw the most enforcement action in 2025?
The 2025 Ads Safety Report enforcement breakdown identifies specific policy categories where enforcement volume was concentrated, providing signal about Google's enforcement priorities and the compliance areas where advertisers face highest enforcement probability. Advertisers operating in affected categories should prioritize compliance investment accordingly. Misrepresentation and deceptive practice enforcement accounted for the largest single category of the 8.3 billion ad blocks, reflecting continued focus on scams, impersonation, and misleading claims across multiple verticals. Enforcement concentrated on fake promotional offers promising outcomes that services cannot deliver, impersonation of legitimate brands or individuals, misleading urgency tactics such as false deadlines or scarcity claims, impersonation of government agencies or regulatory authorities, fake news formats designed to appear as editorial content, and clickbait claims that underlying content does not support. Financial services advertising saw substantial enforcement within the misrepresentation category, with particular focus on cryptocurrency scams, forex fraud, consumer lending misrepresentation, and investment advice violations. Personal attributes and sensitive interest violations generated substantial enforcement reflecting Google's policies prohibiting personalized advertising based on sensitive personal attributes. Enforcement addressed targeting based on health condition, sexual orientation, financial status, political affiliation, religious beliefs, and other sensitive categories. The enforcement extends to creative content that implies knowledge of personal attributes ('are you struggling with X', 'people like you'), targeting configurations that proxy for sensitive attributes, and audience building that aggregates sensitive signals. Trademark and intellectual property violations generated consistent enforcement volume reflecting the ongoing pattern of unauthorized use of brand names, product names, and protected creative assets. Advertisers using competitor trademarks in ways not permitted under trademark policy, advertisers using protected creative assets without authorization, and advertisers selling counterfeit products face trademark enforcement. Restricted and prohibited category enforcement addressed advertising in categories with categorical restrictions or prohibitions including firearms, drugs, gambling without certification, adult content, and other restricted categories. Enforcement includes both outright prohibited content and content in restricted categories without required certification. Political and election-related enforcement addressed the politically sensitive content categories with elevated transparency and verification requirements. The April 16 2026 extension of election advertiser verification to Shopping Ads introduces additional enforcement scope on political content in that ad format. Health advertising enforcement addressed health claims, medical services, pharmaceutical advertising, and wellness category violations with focus on misleading health claims, unauthorized medical services, and pharmaceutical restrictions. For vertical-specific compliance review see our Financial Services Compliance and Healthcare Compliance guides.
What new Ads Advisor features did Google announce alongside the 2025 report?
Google has been expanding advertiser-facing safety and compliance tooling alongside its Gemini-powered enforcement; some reporting describes 'Ads Advisor'-style features. Treat any specific set of named features as illustrative unless confirmed against Google's official product announcements. The features provide in-workflow compliance support, security monitoring infrastructure, and streamlined certification processes that together help legitimate advertisers maintain compliance posture and reduce compliance-related disruption. Real-Time Policy Reviews provide instant policy guidance during ad creation and editing workflow rather than only after submission. As advertisers build campaigns in Google Ads interfaces, the system surfaces potential policy concerns during creative assembly, targeting configuration, and campaign setup — before the advertiser submits the campaign for review and before policy violations produce enforcement action. The real-time approach supports compliance at creation rather than remediation after enforcement, reducing the workflow disruption from traditional post-submission review. Advertisers see specific policy concerns identified with guidance on remediation, enabling creative adjustment in the creation flow. The feature extends to creative editing, where changes to existing campaigns trigger real-time review of the updated creative against policy requirements. The real-time approach reflects broader Google product strategy of integrating AI-powered assistance into workflow contexts rather than as separate review processes. Security Insights Dashboard provides 24/7 security monitoring for advertiser accounts with passkey-based authentication and centralized visibility into security signals. The dashboard surfaces unusual login patterns, payment method changes, campaign modifications that diverge from historical patterns, and other signals that may indicate account compromise or unauthorized access. The monitoring reflects the reality that ad account compromise has become a material threat vector, with bad actors compromising legitimate accounts to run unauthorized campaigns that trigger enforcement action against the legitimate account owner. The dashboard enables early detection of compromise and supports rapid response before extensive damage. Passkey authentication provides stronger account security than password-based authentication, reducing compromise risk at the authentication layer. Instant Certifications built on Gemini capabilities streamline the certification processes that apply to restricted advertising categories including gambling, pharmaceutical, financial services, and other regulated categories. Previous certification processes required manual document review with variable turnaround times that created material delays in restricted category advertiser onboarding. Gemini-powered certification automates much of the document review while maintaining human oversight for complex cases, producing faster certification completion for straightforward applications and faster progression through review stages for complex applications. The feature benefits legitimate advertisers in regulated categories by reducing onboarding friction, while Google's enforcement continues addressing bad actors in those categories through separate enforcement mechanisms. The three features collectively support advertiser workflow within the Gemini-powered enforcement environment, helping legitimate advertisers maintain compliance posture and account security while Google's enforcement focuses on bad ads and bad actors. For advertiser workflow integration see our AI Compliance Audit.
How should advertisers adapt compliance programs to the Gemini-powered enforcement environment?
Advertisers should adapt compliance programs to address the Gemini-powered enforcement environment through structural changes across pre-flight review, creative development, campaign monitoring, response capability, and organizational capability. The adaptation scope should match advertising investment scale and compliance risk exposure. Pre-flight review adaptation addresses the sophistication increase in detection. Traditional pre-flight review focused on obvious policy violation patterns — prohibited keywords, restricted visual elements, explicit claim violations. Updated pre-flight review should address policy nuance including implied claims, contextual violations that depend on landing page or targeting context, and sophisticated variations of known violation patterns. Pre-flight tooling should include AI-powered analysis capable of detecting nuance that simple rule-based tools miss, with human review for edge cases and strategic creative decisions. The pre-flight workflow should integrate with creative development processes so that compliance review happens during creative assembly rather than as a post-production gate. Creative development adaptation addresses the creative flexibility that compliance constraints allow. Creative teams should develop working knowledge of policy categories most relevant to the advertiser's verticals, enabling creative exploration within policy boundaries rather than creative that requires extensive compliance remediation. Creative training should cover specific policy nuances including restricted claims, sensitive targeting considerations, and vertical-specific compliance requirements. Brief documents should include compliance parameters alongside creative objectives. Campaign monitoring adaptation addresses the continuous detection capability of the Gemini-powered enforcement systems. Campaigns face enforcement throughout lifecycle rather than only at submission, meaning that compliance posture must be maintained during delivery. Monitoring should include placement reporting review for enforcement actions, ongoing pattern analysis for emerging issues, and prompt response to enforcement notifications. Response capability should include internal workflow for rapid enforcement response, appeal infrastructure for potential false positives, and documentation discipline supporting appeal success. Response capability differentiates between advertisers that recover from enforcement quickly and advertisers that experience extended disruption. Organizational capability addresses the compliance talent, tooling, and process that sustain compliance operations under the updated enforcement regime. Compliance talent should include expertise in specific policy categories, familiarity with enforcement patterns, and capability for strategic compliance judgment beyond rule application. Compliance tooling should include AI-powered pre-flight review, placement monitoring infrastructure, enforcement response workflow, and appeal management systems. Compliance process should integrate with creative, media planning, and campaign management workflows so compliance is embedded rather than bolted on. Budget allocation for compliance should reflect the increased complexity of the updated enforcement environment. Advertisers that underinvest in compliance face higher enforcement-related disruption that costs more than compliance investment saved. Advertisers that overinvest may restrict creative effectiveness through excessive compliance caution. Balanced compliance investment aligned with risk exposure produces optimal outcomes. For comprehensive advertiser compliance framework use the AI Compliance Audit and the Legal Compliance Scan.
Don't miss the next policy change.
Create a free account — track every policy change across 8 platforms, get instant alerts, and access every free compliance tool. Or try our Keyword Risk Checker first.
Report Keywords — Run AI Compliance Audit
#Google Ads#Ad Policy#AI Enforcement#Gemini#Ad Transparency Report#Account Suspension#Policy Violations#Ad Compliance#2026 Policy#Compliance Guide 2026#Advertisers#Platform Policy
Related Posts
YouTube's 2026 Advertiser-Friendly Update: Controversial Issues Become Monetizable and What It Means for Brand Safety
YouTube now lets controversial-issue videos earn ad revenue when non-graphic — a monetization loosening that shifts brand-safety control to advertisers' settings.
Google Ads AI Labeling Requirements in 2026: Labeling AI-Generated Image and Video Creatives
Google now lets advertisers add AI labels to image and video ad creatives generated or modified with AI, to help meet AI-transparency rules in the EU, India and New York.
YouTube Advertiser-Friendly Guidelines in 2026: Content Categories, Self-Certification, Inventory Modes and Brand Suitability
YouTube's advertiser-friendly content guidelines decide which videos earn ads, while inventory modes and content exclusions decide where advertisers' ads run — two linked systems that define brand safety in 2026.