A Small Team. One Focus. No Marketing Claims We Cannot Back.
We are a small team of Google Ads and Google Merchant Center policy specialists. We work only on policy issues. We diagnose every case in writing. We tell prospects honestly when their case cannot win. The rest of this page explains why we work this way and what makes the approach different from a typical agency engagement.
We do not name individual team members on this site. We do not publish team photos. Our credibility comes from how we work, the documentation we cite, and the cases we publish. If that approach is not enough for you, that is a reasonable preference and we will not try to talk you out of it.
Who We Are
We are a small specialist team focused on Google Ads and Google Merchant Center policy enforcement. The team includes specialists in technical fixes (cleaning compromised sites, configuring landing pages for AdsBot crawler compliance, restructuring redirect chains), specialists in documentation and certification work (advertiser verification, Financial Services certification, authorized reseller documentation, DMCA coordination), and the founder, who leads diagnosis on complex cases and provides editorial oversight on every engagement.
The founder came to policy work from a compliance background. The skills that transfer from compliance to Google Ads policy work are specific and useful: reading regulatory text carefully, building documentation packages that meet stated criteria, understanding how enforcement systems escalate, knowing when to acknowledge a violation and when to dispute it. These are the same skills Google's review teams look for in appeal submissions.
The team has been focused on Google Ads policy work for between two and five years. The founder is active in Google Ads policy communities and forums, which is how the team stays current as Google's enforcement patterns shift between updates to the published policy documentation.
We started by serving clients in a single region and have grown to serve international clients. Google Ads policies are enforced globally in English, which makes the appeal process the same regardless of where the advertiser is based.
Why Policy Work Specifically
Most Google Ads agencies handle policy enforcement between campaign optimizations. A suspension lands on a client's account, the agency drafts a generic appeal, the appeal fails, and the agency tells the client there is nothing more to be done.
We do not run campaigns. We do not pick keywords. We do not optimize bidding strategies. We handle policy enforcement and the work that surrounds it: diagnosis, documentation, corrective action, appeal preparation, ongoing compliance. That is the entire scope of what we do.
The narrow focus matters because Google Ads policy work has its own depth that does not benefit from generalist attention. The Misrepresentation policy alone has ten sub-policies, each with its own evidence requirements. The Merchant Center side has its own appeal quota system that requires more caution than the Google Ads side. The Financial Services policy is jurisdiction-heavy in ways that take real attention to navigate correctly. The Copyright policy splits into a DMCA pathway and a certification pathway with different procedures.
A specialist who reads these policies every week, follows the changes in Google's enforcement behavior, and works the appeals process across dozens of cases per year develops a different kind of fluency than a generalist who handles a few policy cases per year between other work. We chose to be specialists because the work rewards it.
How We Actually Work
Every case starts the same way:
You send us the suspension notice, the disapproval message, or the policy question. We respond within one business day with a written diagnosis. The diagnosis identifies the specific policy that hit the account, identifies the likely trigger within that policy, names which case profile the situation matches, and gives our honest verdict on whether the case has a realistic path forward.
The written diagnosis is the only deliverable from the free preliminary stage. We do not send a sales call instead. We do not respond with a generic intake form. We do not send a quote before we have actually looked at the case. The first reply is the diagnosis itself, written, in your inbox.
If the diagnosis identifies a case we can take, we send a quote separately along with the diagnosis. If the diagnosis identifies a case we cannot take, we explain why and point toward the honest alternative (a different specialist, a different platform, a different business approach, or in some cases, an attorney).
For cases we take, the work follows the process described on each policy service page: audit, corrective action, documentation, appeal, follow-up, post-reinstatement compliance. We do not skip steps. We do not submit appeals before the corrective action is verified. We do not promise outcomes Google does not guarantee.
For clients who want ongoing support after their initial case closes, we offer compliance retainers. Most engagements end when the suspension is resolved, but some clients prefer to stay engaged for ongoing policy monitoring as Google's enforcement patterns shift. The retainer option exists because policy compliance is an ongoing process, not a one-time fix.
Where We Differ From Typical Agencies
The single most important difference: we say no.
A meaningful percentage of cases that come to us are not workable. Operators of counterfeit goods sites. Operators of sites built around prohibited categories. Repeat offenders who plan to resume the same flagged practices after reinstatement. Cases where the appeal would require fabricating documents or misrepresenting facts to Google. We decline these cases within the free diagnosis stage.
Declining cases is uncommon in this category. Most agencies will take any case that pays. The reason we decline is straightforward: filing weak appeals on cases that cannot win damages our credibility with Google's review teams, which then hurts the legitimate clients we work with. It also wastes the prospect's money on work that will fail and sometimes makes their situation worse.
Beyond declining cases, three other patterns distinguish how we work:
We diagnose in writing. Every case gets a written diagnostic reply within one business day. Conversational diagnosis (a quick phone call, an informal chat) is faster but creates no documentation, no clear scope, and no record either party can refer back to. Writing slows the process slightly. It also forces precision and creates a record that protects both the client and us.
We verify against Google's current policy text on every case. Google updates the Help Center documentation periodically. Enforcement patterns shift between published updates. A specialist who works from memory rather than from current documentation misses changes. We pull the relevant policy page on every case before drafting the diagnosis or the appeal. The blog post and policy service pages on this site reflect the same discipline.
We acknowledge what we do not know. Where Google publishes a precise policy framework, we apply it. Where Google's policy uses qualified language like "compelling circumstances" without a precise definition, we treat that as the uncertainty it is rather than inventing precision that does not exist. The honest "we do not know exactly how Google's reviewer will interpret this" is more useful to a client than a confident fabrication.
On the Question of Anonymity
We do not name individual team members on this site. We do not publish team photos. This is a deliberate choice and we want to address it directly because anonymous service businesses face legitimate skepticism, especially in a category where prospects are evaluating who to trust with a suspended account.
Two reasons for the anonymity:
The first is operational. Working in Google Ads policy means engaging with Google's review teams, regulatory references, and occasionally with brand owners filing trademark complaints. Public visibility for individual team members would invite the kind of correspondence that interrupts the work itself. Other policy specialists in this category have made similar choices for similar reasons.
The second is that the team composition shifts as work demands change. Naming individual specialists creates the implication that those specific people work every case, which is not always accurate. Specialists who handle technical cleanup may not work documentation cases, and vice versa. The team is real. The composition is fluid.
This choice has costs. Some prospects will read this page, conclude that an anonymous specialist team is not a fit for them, and look elsewhere. That is a reasonable preference. We do not try to overcome it through invented founder stories or fabricated team biographies. If anonymity is a dealbreaker, we will tell you within the diagnostic reply and point you toward specialists who name their teams publicly.
What we do publish, in place of named individuals, is the work itself: real case studies with client permission, citations against Google's current documentation, transparency on our editorial process, and disclosure of cases we cannot help with. Trust signals through the work, rather than through faces.
How to Decide Whether We Are the Right Fit
The free diagnosis is the test. Send us the suspension notice or the disapproval message. Within one business day you receive a written reply that identifies the specific policy issue, the case profile match, and the realistic path forward.
That diagnostic reply is the evidence you need to make a decision. If the diagnosis demonstrates real specialist knowledge of your specific policy issue, you have a signal that the team can handle the work. If the reply reads like a generic agency response that could apply to any case, you have the opposite signal.
We prefer that you make this judgment based on the actual diagnosis rather than on credentials, testimonials, or marketing claims. The diagnosis is the only thing that demonstrates the work itself.
Three things you should know before sending us a case:
The diagnosis is free regardless of your decision. If you read the diagnosis and decide to engage a different specialist, handle the case yourself, or simply walk away, you owe us nothing. The diagnosis exists to help you decide. It does not create any obligation.
We respond within one business day, Monday through Friday. Cases submitted on weekends or holidays receive a reply on the next business day. If your case is genuinely time-sensitive (Merchant Center suspension during peak shopping, the 7-day warning window on Compromised Sites enforcement, a tight Financial Services certification deadline), mention the timing in the inquiry and we move you to the front of the queue.
We will not promise outcomes Google does not guarantee. No reinstatement is guaranteed. No appeal is certain. Our work is to give your case the best realistic shot at the outcome you want, with honest expectations throughout. Specialists who promise certain outcomes on Google policy cases are misleading you.
What to Read Next
The fastest way to understand how we work is to look at the work itself.
- Read our policy service pages — to see how we approach each Google Ads and Merchant Center policy
- See a real case study — describing how we resolved a Circumventing Systems Multiple Account Abuse suspension for a professional services firm
- Try the Free Preliminary Assessment tool — to get an instant preliminary read on your case
Send Us Your Case
Free written diagnosis within one business day. Honest verdict, even when the news is not what you want to hear. No retainer until you have read the diagnosis and approved a quote in writing.