Why Ad Approval Does Not Shield Advertisers from Legal Liability

The recent Search Engine Land piece by Ameet Khabra, “Why ad approval is not legal protection” (Dec 23, 2025), outlines a critical risk advertisers often misunderstand: platform approval does not remove an advertiser’s legal responsibility for misleading or deceptive claims. As Khabra bluntly warns, “That assumption is wrong, and it is one of the most dangerous mistakes an advertiser can make.”

Why platform approval and legal liability diverge

Platform ad review processes enforce internal policies designed to protect a platform’s brand safety and business model — not to provide a comprehensive legal vetting of every claim. In the United States, platforms operate with broad protections under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which shields them from publisher liability for third-party content. Advertisers, by contrast, face a strict-liability standard from regulators such as the Federal Trade Commission: if an ad makes a deceptive claim, the advertiser is the one on the hook.

How this plays out in practice

Khabra explains that this legal asymmetry creates a hostile environment for legitimate advertisers: platforms are effectively immune, agencies can rely on negligence defenses, and advertisers carry the non-delegable duty to ensure ad truthfulness. That imbalance is compounded by the way some platforms handle borderline or suspicious advertisers: internal documents and investigations show platforms sometimes keep suspect accounts in the auction — charging them higher prices instead of outright banning them — which raises costs for compliant advertisers and increases marketplace risk.

Evidence the problem is systemic

Independent reporting has documented the scale and consequences of this dynamic. A Reuters investigation found that platforms have shown billions of scam ads and that internal documents estimated roughly 10% of certain platform ad revenue could be tied to high-risk ads. As fraud investigator Sandeep Abraham told Reuters, “If regulators wouldn’t tolerate banks profiting from fraud, they shouldn’t tolerate it in tech.” That observation underscores why advertisers must treat platform approval as a checkpoint, not a defense.

What advertisers should do right now

The remedies are practical and actionable. Below are the controls and processes we recommend immediately.

1. Adopt a zero-trust policy for creative and claims

Never publish auto-generated or platform-altered creatives without human review. If you use AI tools or platform auto-apply features (for example, Performance Max or Advantage+ Creative), require manual sign-off for every asset that contains claims about product performance, pricing, health outcomes, or financial returns.

2. Build substantiation folders for every claim

Create a substantiation PDF repository that links each marketing claim to evidence: lab reports, third-party certifications, dated invoices, customer test results, or legal disclaimers that predate the ad. Keep these files versioned and dated before the publication time — they are the single best defense when regulators or competitors challenge a claim.

3. Audit your account settings and auto-apply features

Turn off settings that allow platforms to rewrite copy, automatically generate assets, or expand final URLs without review. Features that increase efficiency can also introduce hallucinated claims, incorrect URLs, or links to test pages that create legal exposure.

4. Elevate oversight in regulated verticals

If you advertise in supplements, fintech, healthcare, or weight-loss categories, apply stricter pre-launch checks. These verticals attract regulatory scrutiny and consumer complaints — and enforcement tends to follow where harm or scale is high.

5. Contractual and operational checks with agencies

Require agencies to provide periodic substantiation reports and indemnity assurances where appropriate. Include contractual SLAs for creative approvals, and make it clear that final legal responsibility rests with the brand — but document the agency’s role and the evidence you relied on.

Implications for strategy and budgeting

Advertisers should budget for compliance work as part of their media spend. The cost of maintaining substantiation, human review, and tighter controls will be lower than the cost of enforcement, fines, and reputational damage. Moreover, long-term strategy must account for platforms’ differing enforcement approaches: where one platform is lax, your ads may face more competition from bad actors and higher CPCs. Preparing for these externalities — monitoring platform policy updates and legislative proposals like SAFE TECH — should be part of quarterly planning.

Final thoughts

Platform approval is not a legal shield. Treat ad review as a signal rather than a defense and build internal processes that reflect the legal reality advertisers face. As Ameet Khabra noted in Search Engine Land, the stakes are real: “That assumption is wrong, and it is one of the most dangerous mistakes an advertiser can make.” Pair that urgency with practical controls — substantiation, manual oversight, and audited account settings — and you reduce risk while maintaining performance.

Further reading: Ameet Khabra, “Why ad approval is not legal protection,” Search Engine Land. https://searchengineland.com/why-ad-approval-is-not-legal-protection-466644