Rules and ethics
Part of Why local SEO rules and ethics now decide which agencies win trust
Why local SEO advertising rules need documented sources
A checklist on documenting local SEO advertising claims for England teams, covering ASA sanctions, CAP evidence rules, CIM guidance and Googlebot verification.
What to take away
- The Advertising Standards Authority sanctions page sets out what can follow a misleading claim, including removal of paid search ads and a published non-compliant listing (ASA, accessed 2026).
- The Committee of Advertising Practice codes require evidence held before a claim runs, so source files should be dated and stored.
- Google publishes a method for verifying Googlebot, which supports technical claims about crawler access in audits.
- Each claim needs a named source, a date and a named owner, or it should not go live.
- Sources change, so a quarterly check keeps the file current.
Why evidence has to sit behind every claim
A local SEO advert promising page one rankings within 30 days is a marketing claim under the CAP Code, and the advertiser must hold evidence before publication. That means a dated source, not a memory of a test. The Local SEO: UK rules and compliance guide for 2027 sets out the wider framework if you need the full picture before drafting.
What the ASA can do
The ASA publishes its sanctions on a dedicated page. Outcomes range from requiring a correction to withdrawing paid search advertising and adding the advertiser to a published non-compliant list. Read the ASA sanctions guidance before you sign off any claim that names a ranking, a timescale or a competitor.
Where sector insight sits
The Chartered Institute of Marketing publishes articles and reports on marketing practice. Its CIM content insights are useful when you want a second view on how claims are framed in a sector. For individual cases, a qualified adviser should review the wording.
The source file you should keep
A source file is the practical answer to where a number came from. It holds the evidence behind every claim in a campaign.
Checklist
- Claim register: every claim, its wording and where it appears.
- Source for each claim: regulator page, official statistic or platform documentation, with the URL.
- Date captured: the day the source was read, plus the period the data covers.
- Owner: one named person accountable for each entry.
- Review date: quarterly for ranking claims, annually for legal references.
- Approval trail: who signed off, and when.
Where a claim rests on personal data, such as a review quote or a testimonial, the Local SEO data protection: data and sources article explains how to record consent alongside the source.
Verification in practice
Technical claims need the same treatment. If a campaign says Google can crawl a site, cite the method for verifying Googlebot requests rather than asserting it. That page explains reverse DNS and IP checks, which is the evidence an auditor would expect.
How to keep the file current
Sources expire. A ranking study from three years ago does not support a 2026 claim. Set a calendar reminder, re-read each entry, and update or remove the claim if the source has moved.
Common failure points
- Linking to a homepage instead of the page that carries the figure.
- Citing a competitor blog as if it were primary evidence.
- Keeping a screenshot with no URL or capture date.
- Letting a claim drift beyond its original scope.
A worked example
An agency promises top three local rankings within 90 days for a client paying £400 a month. The claim needs a source, so the team records its own anonymised campaign results, dated, with the sample size stated. That is an illustrative example, not a benchmark. If the sample is too small, soften the wording instead.
Common questions
Do these rules cover the whole UK?
Advertising codes apply across the UK, while some consumer and data rules differ in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. This article focuses on England practice. Check the devolved regulator pages for variations.
Can we rely on a tool's ranking data?
Only if you can name the tool, the date and the location settings. Tool data is secondary evidence, useful alongside first-party measurement, not instead of it.
Who owns the source file?
One named person should. Shared ownership usually means no one checks the review dates, and stale evidence is the most common cause of a failed challenge.
What if a client supplies the claim?
The agency still carries responsibility for publishing it. Ask for the client's evidence, and if none exists, reword or decline.
This is general guidance. Individual cases need a qualified adviser.
