Most advertisers who get into trouble with Local Services Ads did not set out to break the rules — they adopted a "clever" tactic that quietly crossed a line. This field guide catalogs the most common prohibited Local Services Ads practices, explains why each is a problem, and pairs it with the compliant alternative that usually works better anyway. The goal is not to scare you; it is to help you keep the top-of-search placement you are paying to hold.
Google publishes the authoritative policy language in its help center, and genuinely legal questions belong with a qualified attorney. Treat this as a practical map of the potholes.
1. Misrepresenting your business or services
Listing services you do not perform, claiming service areas you cannot reach, or running under a business name that does not match your verified identity are all forms of misrepresentation. Beyond the policy risk, they are self-defeating: they generate leads you cannot book, which you still pay for and which drag your booked-job economics down. The compliant alternative is to list only what you actually do, where you actually do it — accuracy protects both your account and your budget.
2. Running categories you are not qualified for
Selecting categories whose license, insurance, or background-check requirements you cannot document is a prohibited shortcut. It may pass initial onboarding but tends to surface at re-verification, and it exposes you to enforcement in the meantime. Only run categories you can fully document.
3. Manipulating reviews
Review manipulation is the single most common exposure, and it takes several forms — all prohibited:
- Review-gating: pre-screening customers by satisfaction and only asking the happy ones to post publicly.
- Fake reviews: reviews from people who never used the service, including reviews you or employees write without disclosure.
- Incentivized reviews: paying or rewarding customers for a positive review specifically.
- Suppressing negatives: using threats or pressure to remove honest critical reviews.
All of these also implicate the FTC's fake-review rule (16 CFR 465). The compliant pattern: ask every customer the same way, keep incentives out of the review path, and reply publicly and professionally to whatever comes in.
4. Misusing customer lead data
The contact information attached to an LSA lead exists so you can serve that customer's request. Harvesting it into unrelated marketing lists, selling it, or otherwise repurposing it runs against program expectations and privacy norms. Use lead data for its intended purpose and keep it secure.
5. Gaming the lead-credit system
Since manual disputes were retired around mid-2024, Google uses a machine-learning model to auto-credit clearly invalid leads and a "Rate this lead" survey to gather quality signals. Rating genuine, bookable leads as bad to claw back spend is dishonest and counterproductive: the survey feeds Google's understanding of your lead quality, so dishonest ratings can distort the very targeting you depend on. Rate leads honestly — the recoverable share of spend (third-party estimates put it around 6–7%) comes from genuinely invalid leads, not gamed ones.
| Prohibited practice | Compliant alternative |
|---|---|
| Listing services you do not perform | List only what you actually do |
| Running unqualified categories | Run only documented categories |
| Review-gating or fake reviews | Ask every customer honestly |
| Repurposing lead contact data | Use lead data for the customer's request |
| Rating good leads as bad for credit | Rate every lead honestly |
Why the compliant path usually wins
Notice a pattern: in every case, the prohibited tactic is not just risky, it is economically worse. Fake service listings buy unbookable leads. Gated reviews throttle your own review velocity — a widely understood performance factor — by design. Gamed lead ratings poison your targeting. The honest version of each practice is the one that also grows booked revenue, which is why disciplined operators treat compliance and performance as the same project.
A word on agencies and third parties
Many home-service businesses hand LSA to an agency or a marketing partner, and it is worth being clear about where responsibility sits: the account is yours, and so is the exposure if a partner adopts a prohibited practice on your behalf. An agency that gates reviews, lists services you do not perform, or games lead credits is putting your account at risk, not theirs. Ask any partner directly how they handle reviews, category selection, and lead rating, and do not accept vague answers. If a vendor promises results that only make sense if a rule is being bent — guaranteed five-star ratings, or suspiciously low reported lead costs — treat that as a warning sign. You are the one who answers for the account at re-verification, so you are entitled to know exactly how it is being run.
The bottom line
The prohibited Local Services Ads practices worth memorizing come down to five: don't misrepresent, don't run categories you can't document, don't manipulate reviews, don't misuse lead data, and don't game the credit system. Each has a compliant alternative that protects your account and generally performs better. When a shortcut feels clever, that is usually the moment to check the policy — or ask a qualified attorney.
Frequently asked questions
What practices are prohibited in Local Services Ads?
Broadly: misrepresenting your business or services, running categories you are not licensed for, manipulating reviews through gating or fake reviews, misusing customer lead data, and gaming the lead-quality or credit system. Each can lead to suspension.
Is review-gating against LSA rules?
Review-gating, where you pre-screen customers by satisfaction and only ask happy ones for a public review, cuts against both Google's expectation of honest reviews and the FTC fake-review rule (16 CFR 465). Ask every customer the same way instead.
Can I use LSA lead contact information for marketing?
Customer contact information from LSA leads should be used to serve that customer's request, not harvested for unrelated marketing. Misusing lead data runs against program expectations and privacy norms.