Google’s current Business Profile policies draw a clear distinction between a business listing and the posts a merchant publishes. Time-limited campaigns belong in a different editorial workflow from the information that defines the business’s lasting identity. Local SEO teams should review those surfaces separately before making a blanket decision to remove promotional content.
The wording was verified on October 6, 2026. The help pages do not expose a publication timestamp or a change history establishing when every relevant provision took effect. This is a review of current official policy wording, not confirmation that all these restrictions were introduced today.
Listings and posts have different promotional boundaries
In its prohibited and restricted content policy, Google bars promotional or commercial listing content containing time-bound promotions, pricing or direct calls to action. It separately says offers and promotional updates are otherwise permitted in posts, while restricting contact details and website or social links unrelated to the business. Sector-specific restrictions still apply.
The business representation guidelines add a specific rule for the description: it should explain the business’s services, products, mission or history, should not focus on promotions, prices or sales, and must not contain links.
That distinction does not justify deleting legitimate contact fields or assuming every dedicated product, service or pricing surface has identical rules. Start by identifying the field and the policy that governs it.
Contacts in posts: relevance is not the only check
Google’s photos, videos and posts policy says it may remove posts with unverified phone numbers, email addresses or social handles. It suggests a Call now button using the verified profile number. Hotels have a separate restriction: they cannot publish offer posts or posts mentioning or linking to deals, promotions or discounts.
For an agency managing several types of business, this matters operationally. A template approved for one client category should not automatically be deployed to another. Add the business type and applicable restrictions to the review record before scheduling a campaign.
An editorial example: move the campaign out of the description
Consider a hypothetical repair business whose description begins, “Book this week for a discounted inspection.” Our recommendation is to replace that campaign-led description with verified information about what the business does, where it operates and what makes its service relevant.
The campaign can then be evaluated separately for an appropriate post, where permitted. Check its terms, dates, destination and contact method before publishing. Moving text to a post is not automatic compliance: the content still needs to satisfy the rules for that business and that surface.
This is an original workflow example, not a Google-approved template. It demonstrates the decision the editor should make: is this lasting business information, or an announcement that belongs to a time-limited campaign?
A focused Business Profile audit
| Review area | Practical check |
|---|---|
| Business description | Does it describe the business without campaign copy or links? |
| Promotional posts | Is the format appropriate for the business category and current policy? |
| Contacts and destinations | Are they relevant, verified where required and owned by the right business? |
| Expired campaigns | Does the editorial calendar identify content needing review? |
| Shared templates | Can local teams distinguish permanent facts from campaign fields? |
Record the original content, the reason for a proposed change and the person responsible for approval. That makes a multi-location cleanup reviewable and avoids silently replacing accurate business information along with unsuitable promotional copy.
Implications for local SEO and AI discovery
Our editorial interpretation is that separating stable identity from campaigns can improve information management. A location record should not depend on a seasonal promotion to explain what the business is. Campaign details should have an owner and a review schedule.
The policy wording does not establish a new local ranking factor or an AI citation benefit. Do not promise visibility gains from removing a phrase. Measure the implementation first: whether the correct fields were reviewed, whether edits were accepted and whether customers can still find the relevant business information.
For AI visibility testing, capture how assistants describe the business before and after changes, but treat those observations separately from policy compliance. A changed answer may reflect other sources or system variation; it cannot by itself show that a profile edit caused the result.
Turn the distinction into a publishing rule
For teams using a CMS or spreadsheet to prepare local content, maintain separate records for lasting business facts and promotional campaigns. The former needs factual ownership; the latter needs dates, terms and a destination review.
Google’s wording provides a useful trigger for that audit. The next action is a field-by-field review of actual profile content, with the applicable policy attached to each decision—not an indiscriminate removal of offers, contact details or prices across every surface.