Some links on this page are affiliate links. See full disclosure in the page footer.

Google’s Message: Stop Renting Trust (December 2025 Core Update + Spam Pressure)

Google’s December 2025 core update finished rolling out, but the bigger signal for entrepreneurs and marketers isn’t just “rankings moved.” It’s that Google is drawing a sharper line around borrowed authority.

If you publish content, run a media site, or buy ad placements, this matters because it changes the risk profile of certain distribution plays. Some setups that used to feel normal can now look like the exact pattern Google is trying to reduce.

What Changed

Google’s Search Status Dashboard shows that the December 2025 core update began on December 11, 2025, and was completed on December 29, 2025.

Around the same time, Google’s spam policy language on site reputation abuse has been tightened and clarified. The key point is that Google is calling out third-party content that tries to exploit the host site’s existing trust and visibility, even when the host claims it was involved.

It boils down to three points:

  • Intent matters: Third-party content isn’t automatically a violation. It’s a problem when it’s mainly there to ride the host site’s authority.
  • Oversight isn’t a shield: Editorial involvement doesn’t necessarily change how Google evaluates the arrangement.
  • The target is ‘authority piggybacking’: The pattern is publishing third-party pages to gain advantages they likely wouldn’t earn on their own.

In November 2025, the European Commission opened a Digital Markets Act investigation that includes scrutiny of how Google’s approach affects publishers, including those that monetize through partner content. That adds a “more eyes on this” layer to what used to feel mostly behind the scenes.

Reuters reporting summarizes the concern as Google demoting publishers when they include commercial partner content, while Google frames the policy as anti-spam and pro-quality. Put simply, Google is framing this as anti-spam enforcement aimed at ‘trust rental’ patterns, and regulators are watching how that line is applied.

What “Borrowed Authority” Actually Means

You can think of it like this: A site earns trust over time. Google observes that trust through lots of signals (history, topic consistency, links, user behavior, and more). Borrowed authority is when someone tries to plug into that trust without really building it.

Sometimes it looks like:

  • A trusted site suddenly hosting pages that feel out of place, mostly commercial, and clearly designed to rank.
  • A third party doing most of the work and getting most of the benefit, while the host provides the domain strength.

Google’s own spam policy examples focus on unexpected third-party pages appearing on otherwise reputable sites. Essentially, “Why is this here?”

Why You Should Care (Even If You Don’t Do SEO)

Because this is about business stability. If your growth strategy relies on rented distribution (placements, partner pages, third-party sections that don’t match your brand), you’re exposed to a specific kind of risk. The kind where performance can drop even when nothing obvious broke.

And if you’re a publisher, the tradeoff gets sharper. The long-term cost of letting your site’s trust be used in ways that don’t match what your audience expects can be massive.

The Decision Lens: Earned Trust vs. Rented Distribution

This isn’t about banning partnerships, affiliates, or sponsored content. Google’s own framing is narrower than that. It’s about intent and effect, meaning content that exists mainly to exploit ranking signals.

A useful way to view it is through the trust match.

Earned trust tends to look like:

  • Content that fits what the site is known for, and what readers would expect to find there.
  • A consistent editorial voice, or standard that shows up across the site, not just on partner pages.
  • Clear accountability for quality and accuracy, beyond “we approved it.”

Rented distribution tends to look like:

  • Pages that feel bolted onto a domain because the domain is strong, not because the topic belongs.
  • Big topic jumps that make a reader pause and think, “Why is this on this site?”
  • A business model where the primary asset is the site’s ranking power, not the audience relationship.

Google’s spam policy examples lean heavily on that “unexpected third-party content” idea.

Overall, the practical takeaway isn’t “panic” or “rebuild everything.” It’s simpler: some distribution tactics have become higher-risk because they look like trust rental.

If you publish content (and sell ad placements)

The question isn’t whether you can monetize. You can. The question is whether the monetization method creates a trust mismatch.

If a visitor landed on your site for the first time, would the page feel like a natural extension of what your site is about? Or would it feel like a separate business bolted onto your domain?

That first impression test matters because Google’s site reputation abuse language is basically about whether third-party content is trying to exploit a site’s ranking signals. It’s also why some publishers are going to feel squeezed. The easy money is often the content that looks least connected to the real audience relationship.

If you buy ad placements (or pay for exposure)

You’re not only buying traffic. You’re buying stability. A placement that works primarily because the host domain is strong can be fragile if Google decides the arrangement looks like borrowed authority. Remember, first-party involvement doesn’t automatically make it okay.

One useful question here is: are you renting someone else’s trust, or borrowing their audience?

Those aren’t the same thing. If you’re borrowing an audience, the content usually has to fit the audience’s expectations. If you’re renting trust, the content can be off-topic and still rank, which is exactly what Google is getting more aggressive about discouraging.

If you’re a founder doing “content partnerships”

Many legitimate partnerships will still be fine. But the deals that look like “we’ll host anything as long as it pays” are the ones most exposed to policy interpretation, especially as scrutiny grows (including in the EU).

Sources:

  • https://developers.google.com/search/blog/2024/11/site-reputation-abuse
  • https://status.search.google.com/summary
  • https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_25_2675

 

Want a heads-up once a week whenever a new article drops?

Subscribe here

Leave a Comment

Open Table of Contents
Tweet
Share
Share
Pin
WhatsApp
Reddit
Email