A North American professional services firm came to us after their second Google Ads account got suspended under Circumventing Systems Policy — Multiple Account Abuse. They had already tried appealing on their own and Google had rejected it. We diagnosed the specific cross-account link, built a comprehensive documentation package, and reinstated the account within 2 to 4 weeks of first contact.
The client operates a professional services firm in North America. Like many service businesses, Google Ads was a meaningful traffic and lead generation channel for them.
Before they came to us, the client had operated a Google Ads account that Google suspended. The client did not fully understand why that first account had been suspended — the notice referenced a policy issue but the specific trigger was not clear to them. After some time, they opened a new Google Ads account to continue advertising their services.
The new account ran for a period before Google suspended it as well, this time citing Circumventing Systems Policy — Multiple Account Abuse. Google's automated system had detected a link between the two accounts and applied the cross-account enforcement.
The client submitted an appeal on their own, explaining the situation in their words. Google rejected the appeal. At that point, 1 to 4 weeks after the second suspension, the client reached out to us.
By the time we got involved, the case had become more complex than a standard Multiple Account Abuse suspension. The combination of a rejected first appeal, the unclear reason for the original suspension, and the lack of clarity around exactly which signal Google had used to link the accounts meant the next move had to be precise. A second weak appeal would close the door for good.
Our diagnosis took 1 to 2 business days because the case required more investigation than the typical Multiple Account Abuse pattern.
The first task was identifying which specific signal Google's system had used to link the two accounts. Google's suspension notices name the policy but rarely identify the exact trigger. We worked through the candidate signals systematically — payment method, business address, contact details, IP and device patterns, login credentials — and identified the shared business address and contact details as the most likely cross-account link.
The second task was understanding the original suspension. The client did not fully know why their first account had been suspended, and that gap mattered for the appeal strategy. If the prior suspension was for an active policy concern (rather than something routine like inactivity or a billing issue), the new account would need to demonstrate that the same issue would not recur. We worked through what was available in the original account history and notices to develop the framing for the appeal.
The case fit Profile 2 from our Circumventing Systems Policy page: Multiple Account Abuse where the underlying business was legitimate but a documented cross-account link made the new account look like an attempt to evade prior enforcement.
The honest verdict we gave the client: the case was viable, but the rejected first appeal narrowed what Google would accept on the second attempt. The appeal had to be comprehensive on the first try because a second rejection could be final. We could not promise reinstatement, but we could tell the client the case had a realistic path forward if the work was done thoroughly.
The reinstatement work involved four phases. We deliberately did not rush.
We carefully reviewed the client's website, the new Google Ads account configuration, and the available history of the original account. The goal was to identify every element Google's reviewer might examine when assessing the appeal. We documented the business identity, the legal structure, the services offered, and the operational footprint. We also identified anything on the site or in the account that could be read as a continuation of the prior account's pattern, and corrected those elements before any appeal went out.
The fix for this case was not a structural change to the business. The client's underlying business identity was sound. What was missing was the documentation to clarify the relationship between the two accounts and demonstrate that the new account represented legitimate continued operation rather than an attempt to evade the prior suspension. We assembled a comprehensive package covering four areas:
We wrote the appeal in the format Google's review team responds to: specific policy citation, specific evidence references, specific business explanation. The appeal acknowledged the cross-account link directly rather than disputing it, demonstrated the corrective actions taken, and made the case that the client's business operated legitimately. The client reviewed and approved every word and every document before submission.
After our submission, Google's review team came back with a follow-up request for additional information before making a final decision. We responded with the requested clarification within our standard response window. Google's review team approved the appeal after that single round of follow-up.
Google reinstated the client's Google Ads account within 1 to 2 weeks of our appeal submission. The total elapsed time from the client first contacting us to the account being reinstated was 2 to 4 weeks.
The reinstatement preserved the client's account structure and history. Once the account was active, the client was able to resume campaigns without rebuilding from scratch.
The reinstatement has held for over a year without further incident. The account has remained in good standing through that period, which matters for this category of suspension: Multiple Account Abuse suspensions sometimes return when the underlying cross-account link continues to be active in Google's detection systems. In this case, the corrective documentation and the framing of the appeal addressed the issue durably.
They carefully reviewed my website and Google Ads account, explained the policy problems clearly, and guided me through the necessary fixes. After making the corrections, they submitted a proper appeal and my account was successfully reinstated.
Three takeaways for advertisers facing Multiple Account Abuse suspensions.
Google's review system tracks appeal history. A weak first appeal that gets rejected makes the second appeal harder, but it does not always make it impossible. The key is that the second appeal must be thorough, evidence-backed, and structurally different from the first. A second appeal that repeats the arguments of the first will close the case.
Some cases come to us where the operator does not fully know why their first account was suspended. That gap is not a dealbreaker, but it changes the appeal strategy. The new account needs to demonstrate that whatever caused the original suspension is not present in the current operation. We work through whatever account history is available to develop that framing.
Google does not tell appellants which signal triggered the link. Operators often guess wrong — they assume it was the payment method when it was actually the business address, or vice versa. The wrong guess produces an appeal that fixes the wrong thing. A careful diagnosis is what separates appeals that work from appeals that fail.
Send us the suspension notice and the rejection from any prior appeal. Within 48 hours we tell you which cross-account link triggered the suspension and whether your case has a realistic path forward.