Should we buy backlinks?

The definition is about purpose, not about money

Google states it in one sentence: "Link spam is the practice of creating links to or from a site primarily for the purpose of manipulating search rankings."

Primarily for the purpose of. That is a test of intent, not of invoices, and it is why no amount of care with the paperwork makes a link-buying arrangement compliant.

Then comes the sentence that settles the actual question, and almost nobody selling you links will quote it: "Google does understand that buying and selling links is a normal part of the economy of the web for advertising and sponsorship purposes."

So payment is not the problem. Sponsorship is normal. Advertising is normal. Google says so in its own spam policy.

The condition is the whole deal: "It's not a violation of our policies to have such links as long as they are qualified". Qualified means marked, in a way described in the next section, so that the link does not pass ranking credit.

Put the two sentences together and the offer collapses into a choice. A marked paid link is permitted and does not lift your rankings. An unmarked paid link might lift your rankings and is against the policy. There is no third option where you pay, stay compliant, and rank better, which is the option most link packages are sold as.

The list includes arrangements nobody calls buying links

This is the part worth reading closely, because several entries describe things ordinary businesses do without ever thinking about search.

Gifts count. Google lists "Sending someone a product in exchange for them writing about it and including a link" as an example of link spam. No money changes hands, and it is still on the list, because the test was never about money.

Contracts count, and this one catches a lot of small businesses. The policy names "Requiring a link as part of a Terms of Service, contract, or similar arrangement without allowing a third-party content owner the choice of qualifying the outbound link".

Read that against your own website. If whoever built it required a credit link in your footer, and you were never offered the option of marking that link, the arrangement is the one being described. Note the shape of the objection, because it is precise: the fault is removing the choice, not the credit.

Related, and just as common: "Widely distributed links in the footers or templates of various sites". One template used across many client sites puts the same link everywhere, which is the pattern the line describes.

Two more entries cover services that get sold by cold email. "Low-quality directory or bookmark site links" is the directory submission package. And Google separately lists "Creating low-value content primarily for the purposes of manipulating linking and ranking signals", which is the guest posting offer written from the other side.

None of this means a link in a footer or a directory is automatically a problem. It means the category you assumed was administrative has a policy attached to it, and it is worth knowing which of these you are already inside.

You can pay for the placement, not for the credit

Here is the mechanism, and it is simple enough to check yourself in a browser.

A link can carry a marker telling search engines how to treat it. Google's instruction for advertising is direct: "Mark links that are advertisements or paid placements" using the sponsored value.

Two other markers exist. For comments and forum posts, Google says: "We recommend marking user-generated content (UGC) links, such as comments and forum posts, with the ugc value." And there is the older, broader one, which Google is careful to say still works: "The nofollow attribute was previously recommended for these types of links and is still an acceptable way to flag them, though sponsored is preferred."

Now apply that to the offer in front of you. Ask the seller whether the link will carry one of those markers.

If the answer is yes, the arrangement is permitted, and it is advertising. Judge it as advertising. Will people on that page click it, and are those people your customers? That is a real question with a real answer, and it has nothing to do with rankings.

If the answer is no, you are being sold the policy violation itself. That is the product. The price reflects the risk, and the risk sits with your website rather than with the seller.

A useful side effect of asking: the question is not technical, cannot be waved away, and the answer tells you which business you are dealing with.

A second rulebook covers some of the same arrangements

Search policy is not the only thing with an opinion here, and the other one is a federal rule rather than a company's guidance.

The FTC's endorsement guides cover disclosure. Advertisers, they say, "are subject to liability for misleading or unsubstantiated statements made through endorsements or for failing to disclose unexpected material connections between themselves and their endorsers."

Be precise about what that does and does not say. It is a rule about endorsements and about disclosing connections, not a rule about hyperlinks. It does not turn every paid link into a legal question.

But look at the overlap. Sending somebody a product so they write about you and link to you is one arrangement that appears in both places. Google treats it as a ranking-manipulation problem. The guides treat an undisclosed connection between advertiser and endorser as a disclosure problem. One arrangement, two separate regimes, and clearing one says nothing about the other.

Whether any particular arrangement falls under that rule is a question for somebody qualified to answer it, and we are not. The useful point is narrower and does not need a lawyer: if you are gifting products for coverage, there is more than one rulebook in the room.

What to check, in order

Five checks, and every one of them is free.

• Look at your own footer first. If a link to whoever built the site sits there, find out whether you were offered the choice of marking it, because that choice is what the policy is actually about.
• Ask any seller one question: will this link carry the sponsored or nofollow marker? A yes makes it advertising you can evaluate on its own merits. A no tells you what you are buying.
• Price the offer as advertising rather than as SEO. Ask how many people read that page and whether they are your customers. If the number is embarrassing once rankings are off the table, that was the only thing being sold.
• Check what you are already paying for. Directory packages, sponsored write-ups and widget placements bought years ago are still live, and they were bought in an era with different advice.
• If you send products to anyone who writes about you, treat disclosure as a separate matter from search, because it is governed separately.

One thing worth separating out. None of this says links do not matter. It says the market in bought links sells the one version that is against the rules, and the version that is within them is ordinary advertising priced as if it were something else.

Working out which links a business already has, which were bought, and which carry markers is unglamorous and is part of what we do on search.

Sources

• Spam policies for Google web search (Google Search Central)
• Qualify your outbound links to Google (Google Search Central)
• 16 CFR Part 255, Guides Concerning Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising (eCFR, Federal Trade Commission)

Last reviewed 2026-09-12.