Rules and ethics
Part of UK local SEO rules and ethics for agencies
Why local SEO advertising rules need documented sources
A practical local SEO guide to CAP Code evidence rules, ASA sanctions, UK consumer and data-protection law, source records and Googlebot verification.
What to take away
- The ASA’s Sanctions page describes measures that can follow non-compliance; its Non-compliant online advertisers list names advertisers that remain in breach.
- The CAP Code, 12th edition, rules 3.1 and 3.7 address misleading claims and the documentary evidence required for objective claims before publication.
- Google’s documentation explains how to verify Googlebot; that verifies the crawler, not whether a page is indexed or ranked.
- 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 that promises page one rankings within 30 days is a marketing claim under the CAP Code. For non-broadcast marketing communications, including most online ads, rule 3.1 says marketing must not materially mislead; rule 3.7 requires documentary evidence before publication for objective claims consumers are likely to regard as substantiated. The CAP Code is the 12th edition of the UK Code of Non-broadcast Advertising and Direct & Promotional Marketing.
The statutory framework matters too. For current unfair-commercial-practices claims in England, refer to the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024; the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 are the predecessor regime, not the current standalone basis. Where an advert uses personal data, such as a review quote or testimonial, the UK GDPR and Data Protection Act 2018 also apply.
Evidence before publication
- Draft claim: page one in 30 days
- Check CAP Code applies
- Hold dated source before publication
- Read ASA sanctions guidance
- Sign off only with evidence
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’s Sanctions page describes action for advertisers that do not comply, including referral to search engines for paid-search restrictions. Its Non-compliant online advertisers list identifies advertisers that remain in breach. For individual decisions, use the ASA rulings search before signing off a claim that names a ranking, timescale or competitor.
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 registerevery claim, its wording and where it appears.
- Source for each claimthe specific regulator page, official statistic, legislation or platform documentation, with its source URL.
- Date capturedthe day the source was read, plus the period the data covers.
- Ownerone named person accountable for each entry.
- Review datequarterly for ranking claims, annually for legal references.
- Approval trailwho 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 Google’s “Verifying Googlebot and other Google crawlers” documentation rather than asserting it. The page explains reverse DNS and IP checks to verify that a requester is Googlebot; that does not by itself prove indexing or ranking.
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. Those terms alone do not substantiate the claim. Before using it, record the actual anonymised campaign results, sample size, period covered, locations, ranking tool and settings, source URL and date captured. That is an illustrative example, not a benchmark. If the evidence does not support the wording, soften the claim.
Common questions
Do these rules cover the whole UK?
The CAP Code applies across the UK. The Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 and the UK GDPR and Data Protection Act 2018 are UK-wide frameworks, though which provisions apply depends on the claim and data use. This article focuses on England practice; check for any nation-specific requirements relevant to a campaign.
Can we rely on a tool's ranking data?
Only if you can name the tool, date and location settings and retain the underlying record. BrightLocal’s Local Search Grid and Local Falcon are examples of local rank-tracking tools; Google Search Console provides search-performance data, not a local grid-rank audit. Treat tool data as 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.
