Google Ads verification issues and the hardest GEOs

[Shechkov]

Hi everyone,
We would like to discuss Google Ads verification and learn more from people who work with it in practice across different GEOs.

We are especially interested in:

• the most common problems during verification;
• which GEOs you consider the hardest;
• at what stage the main difficulties usually appear;
• what causes rejections or repeated review requests most often;
• and what the most unusual or difficult cases in your experience were.

A bit of context from our side: in March alone, we have already successfully verified more than 250 accounts across different GEOs. So we already have solid experience with the process, but we want to study this topic as deeply as possible, compare different experiences, and better understand where the most serious issues usually appear.

We would also like to hear about cases where the same type of data worked well in one GEO but caused problems in another.
Our goal is to collect as much real practice and as many edge cases as possible. We want to better understand all the nuances and also test new, more difficult GEOs in the future.
Any practical experience would be very valuable, especially from people working with large volumes and multiple countries. If you have dealt with difficult cases, repeated checks, unexpected rejections, or specific GEO-related issues, we would really appreciate your input.

 

[ACCS GOOFY]

No problems with verification are observed: you upload the documents and verification is approved instantly or within a couple of days.

 

[CloakClicks]

Absolutely, experience shows verification pitfalls and rejection patterns vary wildly by GEO, so local nuances and documentation formats are key.

 

[Bat9419]

Hi everyone,
We would like to discuss Google Ads verification and learn more from people who work with it in practice across different GEOs.

We are especially interested in:

• the most common problems during verification;
• which GEOs you consider the hardest;
• at what stage the main difficulties usually appear;
• what causes rejections or repeated review requests most often;
• and what the most unusual or difficult cases in your experience were.

A bit of context from our side: in March alone, we have already successfully verified more than 250 accounts across different GEOs. So we already have solid experience with the process, but we want to study this topic as deeply as possible, compare different experiences, and better understand where the most serious issues usually appear.

We would also like to hear about cases where the same type of data worked well in one GEO but caused problems in another.
Our goal is to collect as much real practice and as many edge cases as possible. We want to better understand all the nuances and also test new, more difficult GEOs in the future.
Any practical experience would be very valuable, especially from people working with large volumes and multiple countries. If you have dealt with difficult cases, repeated checks, unexpected rejections, or specific GEO-related issues, we would really appreciate your input.

Interesting.

Are you mostly working with clean entity-based setups, or also dealing with accounts that already have some history / restrictions?

We’re seeing that even after getting accounts live, verification kicks in again and pauses everything.

Curious how you handle long-term stability in those cases.

 

[Shechkov]

Interesting.

Are you mostly working with clean entity-based setups, or also dealing with accounts that already have some history / restrictions?

We’re seeing that even after getting accounts live, verification kicks in again and pauses everything.

Curious how you handle long-term stability in those cases.

About 95% of these accounts are new. We do not use them for long, as there is no need to. The main goal is to extract the maximum ROI from each account, then we simply discard it and move on to the next one. At scale, this approach becomes very profitable. At the same time, they can also be used long term, since all verification levels eventually pass, especially in standard niches.

 

[Shechkov]

Google frequently introduces new verification schemes, so we focus on staying ahead of the curve. We test different approaches daily, analyze the results, and take all possible factors into account to understand the situation as deeply as possible. That’s why it’s important for us to know everything to the maximum extent. At the same time, we’re always ready to share insights and help if anyone runs into issues.

 

[SocialSmile]

Hi everyone,
We would like to discuss Google Ads verification and learn more from people who work with it in practice across different GEOs.

We are especially interested in:

• the most common problems during verification;
• which GEOs you consider the hardest;
• at what stage the main difficulties usually appear;
• what causes rejections or repeated review requests most often;
• and what the most unusual or difficult cases in your experience were.

A bit of context from our side: in March alone, we have already successfully verified more than 250 accounts across different GEOs. So we already have solid experience with the process, but we want to study this topic as deeply as possible, compare different experiences, and better understand where the most serious issues usually appear.

We would also like to hear about cases where the same type of data worked well in one GEO but caused problems in another.
Our goal is to collect as much real practice and as many edge cases as possible. We want to better understand all the nuances and also test new, more difficult GEOs in the future.
Any practical experience would be very valuable, especially from people working with large volumes and multiple countries. If you have dealt with difficult cases, repeated checks, unexpected rejections, or specific GEO-related issues, we would really appreciate your input.

Hey Shechkov,

Great topic! Here's my experience with Google Ads verification across different GEOs:

Most Common Problems:

• Business document mismatch (name/address not matching exactly)
• Phone verification issues in Tier-2/3 countries
• Website content not meeting Google's policy requirements

Hardest GEOs in my experience:

• India & Pakistan — document verification takes longer
• Middle East countries — business registration docs often rejected
• Some Eastern European GEOs — repeated reviews without clear reason

When difficulties appear:Usually at the identity verification and business verification stage — these two are the biggest bottlenecks.

Most common rejection reasons:

• Inconsistent business information across web presence
• Landing page policy violations
• Payment method mismatch with account GEO

Unusual case:Same business documents worked perfectly in one GEO but got rejected 3 times in another — turned out the issue was the phone number format, not the documents!

Would love to hear what patterns you're seeing across your 250+ verified accounts. Are you noticing any specific document types that work more consistently?

 

[Shechkov]

Hey! Yeah, from what we’ve seen, verification really depends a lot on the GEO, not just on the quality of the documents.


In practice, the smoothest regions are usually the US, Canada, UK, Germany, France, Netherlands, Sweden and Finland. In these GEOs verification tends to go through much easier, without unexpected issues. If the data in the account, on the website and in the documents matches, everything usually works fine.


There are also regions you can work with, but more carefully. That’s Poland, Spain, Italy, Belgium, Switzerland, Mexico, Brazil and Japan. In these cases you often get extra checks, phone verification requests, re-reviews or random rejections without a clear reason. So it’s workable, but less stable.


And then there are GEOs where problems are постоянные. India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nigeria, Turkey, Vietnam, Thailand, Belarus, China. In these regions even good documents don’t always help. Rejections often happen not because the document is плохой, but because the region itself is already high-risk in Google’s system.


From what I see, the hardest stages are almost always identity verification and business verification. That’s where most re-checks, rejections and delays happen.


In terms of documents, the most stable combo is basic stuff: passport or ID for identity, and a utility bill or proper business document for business verification. But again, even a good document package won’t fix things if the GEO itself is problematic.


At the same time, right now our main focus is on EU countries, especially without VAT. These are currently the most predictable and manageable in terms of verification. We’re also actively testing business verification specifically, since that’s where most issues appear.


One important thing we’ve noticed: it’s not just about the data inside the document, but about the format and how it’s structured. Google clearly looks at how the document “feels” visually - layout, fonts, structure, how addresses and numbers are written, and whether it matches the typical format of that country.


So if the document looks natural and properly formatted, the chances of passing are much higher. And if the data is technically correct but the document looks unnatural or poorly structured, that often leads to rejection.


That’s why we focus a lot on proper structure, local formatting for each EU country, and clean presentation of all details.


Another important point - it’s much better to take real original documents as references and build templates based on them. Not creating templates from scratch, but adapting them from real samples. Each country has its own specifics: address format, document layout, number structure, etc. When a template is based on a real document, it looks much more natural and performs better in verification.


The most common reason things fail is small inconsistencies. For example:
name written slightly differently somewhere,
address on the website not matching the document,
phone number in a different format,
payment method not matching the region,
or the website not looking convincing enough for the declared business.


So if we simplify it, the logic usually looks like this:
first Google looks at the GEO,
then at overall consistency and formatting,
and only after that at the documents themselves.


We’ve also had cases where the exact same document package passed easily in one region but got rejected multiple times in another. And in the end the issue wasn’t the documents at all, but small things like phone format, payment method or general regional setup.


If you want, I can also break down which GEOs are currently the most stable specifically for Google Ads verification and which ones are better to avoid.

 

[Shechkov]

Hardest GEOs usually Tier1 like US UK DE because business verification and document matching are strict most failures come from inconsistent business info website mismatch or reused assets across accounts

Biggest issue I see is verification loops triggered by domain history and payment profile signals not documents themselves clean footprint and aged assets reduce rechecks a lot

That’s not really true.


This view usually comes from looking at isolated cases instead of large-scale launch data. In real volume, the picture looks very different.


The US, the UK, and Germany are not the “hardest” GEOs. In fact, they are some of the most understandable and stable regions for verification. Yes, the requirements are stricter there, but that is exactly why the moderation logic is usually more consistent and predictable.


If the business data, website, documents, and payment setup are aligned properly and do not contain obvious conflicts, these GEOs usually perform very well even at scale. You get fewer random rejections, fewer strange reverification loops, and overall better stability than in many other regions.


So the issue is not that the US, the UK, or Germany are supposedly the most difficult. The real problems usually start in GEOs where the system behaves less consistently - where something passes today and gets rejected tomorrow for no clear reason.


Just try working with these GEOs at scale, and you will quickly see that the US, the UK, and Germany actually show excellent performance on volume. These are some of the best regions in terms of predictability and stability, not the most problematic ones.

 

[Bat9419]

About 95% of these accounts are new. We do not use them for long, as there is no need to. The main goal is to extract the maximum ROI from each account, then we simply discard it and move on to the next one. At scale, this approach becomes very profitable. At the same time, they can also be used long term, since all verification levels eventually pass, especially in standard niches.

Interesting approach — especially the short-cycle model.

We’re dealing with very similar issues in Turkey: high restriction levels, inconsistent reviews, and frequent post-launch verification problems.

I’m curious about one thing:

When you mention a “full cycle”, does that include any kind of warmup (account aging, light activity, etc.), especially for high-risk niches like ours?

And more importantly — do you actually run these types of cycles for clients in restricted regions like Turkey, or is your setup mainly focused on standard markets?

Because in our case, the biggest issue is not just launching, but keeping campaigns alive after additional verification kicks in later.

If your system works in environments like this, it could be very relevant for us.

 

[Shechkov]

Interesting approach — especially the short-cycle model.

We’re dealing with very similar issues in Turkey: high restriction levels, inconsistent reviews, and frequent post-launch verification problems.

I’m curious about one thing:

When you mention a “full cycle”, does that include any kind of warmup (account aging, light activity, etc.), especially for high-risk niches like ours?

And more importantly — do you actually run these types of cycles for clients in restricted regions like Turkey, or is your setup mainly focused on standard markets?

Because in our case, the biggest issue is not just launching, but keeping campaigns alive after additional verification kicks in later.

If your system works in environments like this, it could be very relevant for us.

When we talk about a “full cycle”, it absolutely includes a preparation stage. This is a critical part of the system. We do not operate on a create and launch immediately model, especially in high risk niches.


Preparation starts from the foundation
proper email selection
clean environment with devices, cookies and behavioral signals
a website prepared for moderation


After that comes the account warm up phase.
For verification purposes, we usually use accounts with some basic history, around 3 to 4 days of controlled activity.


If the goal is to run traffic and maintain stability, the cycle extends to around 21 days. During this time, initial restrictions are reduced, limits are increased and the risk of additional reviews decreases.


We also use additional tools
automation for budget management
scripts for gradual spend scaling
cookie management and behavioral simulation


Regarding geo strategy
we focus on regions that are economically efficient. The stronger the currency, the better it is for us. Our base is EUR, so Europe is a priority.

We mainly work with European countries, as well as regions without VAT or with more flexible conditions. In addition, we have access to reliable document sources, which allows us to scale the verification process without bottlenecks.

As for Turkey
we understand the specifics and limitations of that market, but in most cases we prefer more stable regions where we can build a predictable and scalable system.


In our case, when we plan to use an account for a longer period, we prepare everything in advance. This includes a full set of documents specifically for additional reviews and repeated verification.


Because of this approach, extra checks do not become a problem for us. We already have everything ready before they happen, so the process goes smoothly without interruptions to campaigns.