blog

Why Are Agencies Ignoring Google Ads Recommendations?

resolve@circumventingsystemspolicy.com (Policy Experts) — Thu, 16 Jul 2026 11:15:21 GMT

Log into almost any account an agency runs, and the lightbulb icon carries a number. Dozens of suggestions sit there, unapplied. The optimization score sits below 100%. To a business owner paying that agency, it can look like neglect, since Google is handing out free advice and the people you hired keep walking past it.

The picture changes once you see what a recommendation is. It is a suggestion produced by a system that reads your account and cannot read your business. It does not know your margins, your delivery capacity, or the contract you signed with a distributor. Filling that gap is the job you hired an agency to do. So the ignoring is not laziness, most of the time. Agencies also ignore recommendations for bad reasons, and that part deserves saying too.

What the tab is offering

Start with the thing itself, because plenty of advertisers scroll past it without a real look.

The Recommendations page lists changes Google suggests for your account, each carrying a score uplift, and the sum of those uplifts drives your optimization score. The suggestions are not random. Google builds them from your account data and its own best practices, and the list spans bidding, keywords and targeting, ads and assets, and repairs such as upgrading your conversion tracking. Google also states that the recommendations shift over time to match its best practices and tells you to check the page often. So this is a live, moving list of what Google wants you to do, not a fixed audit of your account.

The gap the machine cannot close

One gap explains why a good agency reads that list with a cold eye. A recommendation gets generated without the facts that decide whether it is a good idea.

Google's system sees your clicks, your conversions, and your spend. It cannot see your margin on each product, so it cannot know that the leads it wants to buy you lose money on delivery. It cannot see your capacity, so it cannot know your sales team is three people who are already drowning. It cannot see your stock, your contracts, your brand rules, or the customer segments you refuse to serve. A suggestion to widen your reach reads as growth to a machine counting conversions, and as a disaster to a business shipping from one warehouse. So the agency is not overruling a smarter system. It is supplying the inputs that system never had.

Auto-apply, the part agencies watch hardest

Some suggestions do not wait for your yes. Google can apply them for you.

Auto-apply lets Google make changes to your campaigns without asking each time. The scope is wide. Google lists bidding recommendations, keywords and targeting recommendations, dynamic search ads, optimized ad rotation, and conversion tracking upgrades among the things it can apply for you. Agencies switch most of these off, because a bid strategy change or a keyword expansion decides how your money gets spent and on what.

Sources disagree on how accounts end up opted in, and I cannot settle it from Google’s public pages. Google describes auto-apply as a feature you turn on. One agency reports that opting in is manual, yet people still find themselves opted in without knowing, through a previous manager or a stray click. Others report Google switching some auto-applies on by default, above all on accounts that never touch the tab, and note there is no single button to turn them all off. Treat the dispute as unresolved and check your own settings, since that is the same action either way. Google tells you where to look: the Recommendations page, or Admin, then Account Settings, then Auto Apply. Your change history will label anything applied this way.

What Google gets right

Now the turn, because a fair article does not stack one side of the table.

Two facts cut against the cynical read. Google’s own page states that auto-applying recommendations will not increase your budget, and that budget raising sits outside this version of the feature. So the darkest version of the story, Google lifting your spending cap behind your back, is not what the documentation describes. Read that limit with care, though. Auto-apply can add keywords and change a bid strategy, and both decide what your existing budget buys and how fast it drains. The cap sits on the number, not on the behavior. The second fact is that Google prunes its own list: from January 26, 2026, it stopped the responsive search ads recommendation from suggesting or applying new ads and removed it from the auto-apply page. A company defending every suggestion does not delete one.

When ignoring becomes neglect

So the agency has a case. The blanket version of that case is still wrong.

Ignore the whole list and you skip repairs that cost nothing and help: broken conversion tracking, negative keywords for search terms that waste money, missing sitelinks, a thin ad. Refusing those is neglect wearing discipline’s clothes. The numbers do not back a blanket no either. A study by the tool Optmyzr found accounts scoring above 80% showed better cost per acquisition and return on ad spend on average than accounts below 70%. Correlation is not proof, and that is one platform’s sample, but it does not describe a list of junk. An agency that applies every recommendation and an agency that ignores every recommendation are making the same mistake in opposite directions. Both skipped the thinking.

Read the list. Apply none by reflex.

A recommendation knows your clicks and not your margins. Apply All and Ignore All are the same mistake in opposite directions, because both skip the step that matters.

What good agencies do instead

Triage, not refusal, is the professional standard.

Read every recommendation and apply none by reflex. Take the free repairs. Test the expensive ideas in one campaign with a capped budget rather than across the account. Dismiss what does not fit, since dismissing is a normal use of the tool and not an insult to Google. Log the reason, so your client sees the thinking and the next manager does not undo it. Judge each item against profit rather than the score, because a lower score with a strong return beats a high score with wasted budget. Check the auto-apply settings at the start of every engagement and after any handover, since agencies report leaving only a few of them on. That discipline is the work behind competent Google Ads Management Services, and it runs slower than clicking Apply All, which is rather the point.

Who is telling you this

We work on Google Ads accounts, including suspensions, so weigh the source. The easy sell would be that Google’s recommendations are a trap and only a hired expert can save you from them. We will not run that line, because half the list is useful and free, and you can read it yourself. What holds up is narrower: a recommendation carries no knowledge of your margins, so the yes or no belongs to someone who has them. And if your ads stopped because of a Google Ads account suspended notice rather than a setting, nothing on that page will help you, because a separate review team makes that call and it is a different fight from this one.

Is Creating a New Google Ads Account Ever Justified?

resolve@circumventingsystemspolicy.com (Policy Experts) — Fri, 26 Jun 2026 11:49:36 GMT

The honest answer turns on a word in the question that is easy to skip: justified. Opening a new Google Ads account is a routine, allowed thing that businesses do every day. Opening one to escape a suspension is a policy violation that gets the new account banned within hours. Same action, opposite outcome, and the difference is the reason behind it.

So the question is two questions wearing one coat. Are you building a legitimate structure, or escaping a decision? Google draws that line hard, and it built a product on one side of it and an enforcement category on the other. Knowing which side you are on is the whole game.

The legitimate side, where Google built a product

Start with the part most people get wrong. Having more than one Google Ads account is allowed, and Google made a tool for that purpose. The Manager Account, still known by its old name MCC, lets an agency or a company hold and run many accounts from a single login, with separate billing, reporting, and ownership for each. A product that manages thousands of accounts is not a product for a platform that bans multiple accounts.

The legitimate reasons are ordinary. An agency gives every client a separate account for clean billing and ownership. A company with distinct brands or legal entities runs a separate account for each, so the books and the campaigns stay apart. An international advertiser uses country-level accounts for currency, language, and budget. A team keeps a test account away from live spend. In every one of these, the accounts are real, separate, and advertising in the open. Google does not penalize the number of accounts. It acts on what the accounts are used to do.

The line Google enforces

The other side has a name, and Google files it under its most serious policy. Multiple Account Abuse sits inside Circumventing Systems, the egregious category, and it covers using extra accounts to get around the rules rather than to run a real business. The clearest version is the one this site is built around: creating a new account after a suspension to keep advertising. Google treats that as an attempt to re-enter the system it just removed you from, and the new account is the violation.

The category is wider than the post-suspension case. Running the same offer or the same website across several accounts to crowd the auction counts. Opening accounts to spend past a limit counts. Spinning up many accounts in a short window, which the system reads as coordinated and suspicious, counts. Google detects the connection through shared payment methods, IP addresses, device fingerprints, domains, and business details, and when it does, it tends to suspend every linked account at once. One flagged account can take the rest down with it.

The act is neutral. The intent is not.

Google built the Manager Account to run many accounts at once. It built Multiple Account Abuse to ban accounts opened to evade a suspension or game the system. Opening an account is allowed. The reason decides whether it is a violation.

The evasion trap

A whole industry exists to help people cross this line without getting caught, and it is worth naming for what it is. Anti-detect browsers, residential proxies, virtual cards, and rented agency accounts all sell the same promise: hide the connection so a second account for the same banned business looks like a stranger. Treat that promise with suspicion. Masking your fingerprint does not make the account legitimate. It removes the only innocent explanation you had left.

Think about how it reads if the masking fails, and it often does. A legitimate separate business has nothing to conceal. An advertiser routing each account through a different proxy and a different virtual card, to run the same project the platform already banned, has documented the intent to evade. The tooling that promises safety is the evidence of the violation. The compliant path never requires you to disguise who you are.

After a suspension, the answer is almost always no

For the most common version of this question, the one asked the moment a Google Ads account suspended notice arrives, the answer is a clear no. Google states the compliant order in plain terms: reinstate the suspended account first, and do not create new accounts to replace it. A new account opened while the original is suspended is treated as circumvention, gets caught on the connection, and tends to stack a fresh permanent ban on top of the one you already had. It also signals to Google that you chose to evade rather than appeal, which does the original case no favors.

The instinct is understandable. The appeal is slow and opaque, and a new account feels faster than fighting the old one. It is a trap. The new account does not escape the suspension; it extends it across a second account and forecloses the cleaner route. The path back runs through the original account and its appeal, not around it.

The gray zone, a clean rebuild after a permanent ban

One case sits in real gray, and it deserves an honest treatment rather than a slogan. Suppose the original account is banned for good, every appeal is exhausted, and there is no mistake left to show. Is a fresh start ever legitimate? It can be, under a strict condition: the new account has to belong to a new and separate business, with a different entity and a compliant model, not the banned operation wearing a new coat.

The test is continuity, not paperwork. If the thing that caused the ban is gone, the products, the practices, the claims, the site that violated the policy, then a new and compliant business is a new and compliant business. If the new account exists to run the same operation that got banned, a different logo and a different card do not change what it is, and Google's systems are built to see through that. The honest version of a rebuild changes the business. The dishonest version changes the disguise. Only the first one is justified, and even then it carries risk.

So, is it ever justified?

Put the evidence together and the answer splits in two.

Is creating a new Google Ads account ever justified? Yes, in the legitimate cases. A distinct business or legal entity, an agency manager account, brand or regional separation, a test account, or routine additional accounts for an advertiser in good standing are all allowed. Google built the Manager Account for this exact purpose, and the number of accounts is not the issue.

When is it not justified? When the purpose is to get around a suspension, a ban, a spending limit, or detection, or to run the same business across accounts for advantage. That is Multiple Account Abuse under Circumventing Systems, Google detects the connection, and it tends to suspend every linked account.

The honest answer is that the act of opening an account is neutral, and the intent behind it decides everything. Build a real, separate structure in the open, with its own entity and accurate details, and a new account is not just justified but ordinary, and a Manager Account is the right way to hold it. Open one to escape a decision, to outrun a limit, or to run the banned business in disguise, and you have not found a workaround; you have committed the violation Google is built to catch. After a suspension, the path forward is the appeal, not a second account. After a permanent ban, the only honest fresh start is a different and compliant business, not the old one renamed. Everything else is evasion with extra steps.

A word on who is telling you this

Weigh the source, because our position here costs us business. People ask us to help them open new accounts to get around suspensions, and we say no, because that is the violation, not the cure. We do not set up anti-detect browsers, supply proxies, or rent agency accounts to hide a connection, and we turn away anyone who wants that. What we do is the opposite: help legitimate advertisers reinstate the account they have, and tell people the truth when a new account would make things worse. If your need is a real separate business or an agency structure, the route is a Manager Account and accurate verification, and you do not need us for that. If your goal is to dodge a ban, no honest service should take the job.

If you are weighing a new account

Sort your situation into one of three before you do anything. If you have a legitimate need, several businesses, several clients, or several regions, open the accounts in the open and link them under a Manager Account. Give each one its real entity, accurate billing, and honest verification, and do not share assets or fake separation to make distinct accounts look unrelated, since that mimics the abuse pattern.

If you are suspended, do not open a new account. Reinstate the original first: find the trigger, fix it, document it, and appeal, in that order. A second account here stacks a permanent ban and weakens the case you still have. If you are under a permanent ban with appeals exhausted, treat a new account as legitimate only if you are building a different, compliant business in fact, and walk away from any tool that promises to hide the connection, because needing to hide it is the answer to whether it is allowed. If you operate in the EU or the EEA, use the statement of reasons and the out-of-court routes the law provides. This is general information about platform enforcement, not legal advice.

Is Google Ads Guilty Until Proven Innocent on Account Suspensions?

resolve@circumventingsystemspolicy.com (Policy Experts) — Tue, 23 Jun 2026 11:15:51 GMT

Read Google’s account suspensions page and it reads less like a help article than a charge sheet. An egregious violation triggers an immediate suspension, with no warning. The account stays suspended, treated as permanent, unless you appeal and win it back. Reinstatement comes only in compelling circumstances, such as a mistake. The structure puts the penalty first and the hearing second, and it leaves you to prove you did nothing wrong.

That structure is what people mean when they call Google Ads guilty until proven innocent. As a description of the experience, the phrase is accurate. As a legal standard, it asks the wrong question, because Google is not a court. Both halves matter.

Why the phrase fits

Google’s own wording carries the burden of proof, and it carries it the wrong way. The policy tells a suspended advertiser to appeal if they believe they have not violated the rules. The move there is subtle and total: you arrive already labeled a violator, and the appeal is your chance to disprove it. Google does not open by proving the violation to you. You open by disproving it to Google.

The default compounds the problem. A suspended account counts as permanent unless you act, and Google reinstates accounts only in compelling circumstances. Inaction means the suspension stands. The advertiser who does nothing stays banned, which is the opposite of how a presumption of innocence works.

Then there is the matter of the charge. Google names a policy, Circumventing Systems or Misrepresentation or another, and links a general page, but it seldom identifies the specific action that tripped the system. You are asked to prove you did not do something, without being told what that something was. Proving a negative is hard. Proving a negative against an unnamed accusation is harder.

The evidence sits on one side too. Google holds the signals that triggered the suspension and does not share them. It publishes no error rate for any policy. For an egregious violation, you often get one appeal, so a single underprepared submission can end the account for good. The party with all the information sets the test, grades it, and keeps the margin of error to itself.

Permanent by default

Google’s own policy treats a suspended account as permanent unless you appeal and win reinstatement, which it grants only in compelling circumstances such as a mistake. The burden of proof sits on the advertiser.

Where the courtroom frame breaks down

The phrase is fair to the experience and unfair to the institution. Three facts pull against it.

Not every suspension lands without warning. For ordinary violations, Google runs a strike system, up to three strikes per policy, with penalties that escalate before a suspension. The immediate, no-warning version applies to egregious violations, the category Google treats as serious enough to act on first and review after. Most of the guilty-until-proven-innocent complaint lives in that lane, not across all enforcement.

Google is a platform, not a court. The presumption of innocence is a protection citizens hold against the state, with its power to jail and fine. A company deciding who may use its advertising network operates under its terms of service, not criminal procedure. Advertising on Google is a commercial privilege, and a private firm can withdraw it on suspicion, the same way a marketplace can suspend a seller while it investigates.

Scale and fraud make the speed defensible. Google suspended 24.9 million accounts in 2025 against a flood of AI-generated scam ads. A standard that required proof of guilt before any action would leave that fraud running while cases were built. Platforms act on probability and signals because the alternative protects the bad actor. Provisional suspension, paired with a right to appeal, is the trade most large platforms have settled on.

And the presumption is rebuttable. There is an appeal, Google says it uses both AI and human evaluation to decide it, and accounts do come back. Call it provisional enforcement with a path to reverse it. The exit exists, even when it is hard to reach.

Why the phrase stings anyway

Grant every point above, and the complaint still has a core that holds. An inverted burden of proof can be fair, but only when the accused can carry it. Google’s process makes the burden heavy in three ways at once.

You have to prove innocence without the charge. The suspension names a policy and withholds the trigger, so your evidence aims at a target you cannot see. You often face an automated first reviewer that rechecks the same signals rather than weighing your explanation. And for egregious cases, you may get a single attempt. The burden is heavy, the information is poor, and the attempts are few. That combination is what turns provisional enforcement into something that feels like a verdict.

The pushback is real and growing. In the EU, the Digital Services Act requires platforms to give a statement of reasons and points suspended advertisers to formal redress, and the GDPR grants a right to human review of an automated decision. Google itself directs EU advertisers to those options. In November 2025 it reported cutting incorrect suspensions by more than 80% and resolving appeals faster. None of that flips the burden back. It makes the burden easier to carry, in some places more than others.

So, guilty until proven innocent?

Put the evidence together and the answer splits in two.

Does Google Ads treat advertisers as guilty until proven innocent? As an experience and a burden of proof, yes. It suspends egregious cases on detection without warning, calls the account permanent unless you appeal, reinstates only in compelling circumstances, and asks you to disprove a charge it does not state in full.

Is that the right standard to judge it by? Not quite. Google is a platform, not a court; advertising is a commercial privilege; ordinary violations get strikes and warnings; and at fraud scale, provisional action with a right of appeal is defensible. The presumption is rebuttable.

The fair conclusion holds both. The burden of proof does sit on the suspended advertiser, and Google’s own wording puts it there. That arrangement is legitimate for a private platform fighting fraud at scale, on one condition: the appeal has to be a real one. An inverted burden is only just when the accused can see the charge, reach a human, and try more than once. Google has made the process faster and is being pushed by regulators to make it fairer. Until the charge is specific and the appeal is winnable, the phrase will keep fitting, because the people living through it are proving their innocence to a system that assumed otherwise.

A word on who is telling you this

Weigh the source. A firm that wins back suspended accounts has every reason to frame the system as stacked against the advertiser, since that framing sells the service. We have tried to argue it straight, which is why this article spends as long dismantling the courtroom metaphor as defending it. The harsh wording, suspension on detection, permanent unless appealed, reinstatement only in compelling circumstances, is Google’s own, quoted from its policy page. The defenses of it are ours, offered because they are true.

If you are carrying the burden now

Accept the burden, then meet it. The system will not prove your innocence for you, so build the case yourself. Find the specific signal behind the suspension, a redirect, a second account, a billing change, a verification mismatch, and aim your appeal at that signal. Fix it before you appeal, since Google judges the state of your account, not your promise to change it. Attach timestamped evidence of the fix.

File one thorough appeal in place of several thin ones, and treat it as your only shot, because for an egregious violation it may be. If you operate in the EU or the EEA, use the Digital Services Act redress options Google points you to, and your right to human review under the GDPR. This is general information about platform enforcement, not legal advice.

Should Google Ads Be Forced to Explain Every Suspension?

resolve@circumventingsystemspolicy.com (Policy Experts) — Sun, 14 Jun 2026 22:52:33 GMT

A Google Ads suspension arrives with a policy name and little else. The notice cites Circumventing Systems, or Misrepresentation, or another rule, and stops there. You lose your main sales channel that morning, and the message never says which action triggered the decision or how to undo it.

That gap drives a fair demand: make Google explain. The question sounds simple, and three words inside it carry weight: who does the forcing, how deep the explanation runs, and whether the rule covers every suspension or carves out the fraud rings it exists to stop. The European Union has already answered part of this, so the debate runs further than most advertisers think.

The case for forcing explanations

Start with the strongest version of the yes. A bare policy name is not an explanation. You cannot fix a problem you cannot see, and you cannot contest a decision whose basis stays hidden. When Google names Circumventing Systems without naming the redirect, the second account, or the shared payment card behind it, the appeal turns into a guess. Due process means knowing the charge.

The power gap sharpens the point. Google holds the dominant share of search advertising, and for many businesses no real substitute exists. One automated decision can end the channel that pays the staff. A penalty that severe, imposed by a dominant platform, invites the same procedural floor that courts and regulators apply elsewhere.

That floor already exists in European law. The Digital Services Act requires platforms to give affected users a clear and specific statement of reasons when they suspend or terminate an account, to say whether an automated system made the call, and to point to an appeal, with every such statement filed in a public database. The Platform-to-Business Regulation goes further for business users, requiring a statement of reasons on a durable medium for any restriction, suspension, or termination, a thirty-day notice before a full termination, and reinstatement with restored data access when the platform reverses itself. Regulators have started enforcing it. Across late 2025 and early 2026, authorities in Germany, Italy, and France pushed major platforms into compliance. Forcing Google to explain is not a hypothetical. It is law on one continent.

Already law:

The Platform-to-Business Regulation has required platforms to give business users a statement of reasons for suspensions since July 2020. The Digital Services Act extended the duty to account suspensions and added disclosure of automated decisions. EU regulators began enforcing both in 2025 and 2026.

A duty to explain also improves the decision. A system that must state a reason in language a business can read has less room for the lazy inference, the stale signal, or the match no reviewer would defend.

The case against a blanket mandate

Now the strongest version of the no, which does not defend secrecy for its own sake. Google withholds the specific trigger on purpose. Publish the exact signal that caught an account, and the operators gaming the system learn what to change. Cloakers adjust the cloak. Ban-dodgers learn which identifier linked their accounts. The filter that protects users turns into a manual for beating it. Practitioners who handle suspensions every week describe this trade, and the European Union built the same logic into its own rules: the Digital Services Act exempts deceptive high-volume commercial content from the statement-of-reasons duty, the exact category where a detailed reason would arm the spammer.

Scale compounds the problem. Google suspended 24.9 million advertiser accounts in 2025 and 39.2 million the year before, and machines drive almost all of it. A specific, human-readable reason for each one is an enormous undertaking, and at that volume even a templated reason strains against the variety of real cases.

The technology resists clean reasons too. Many suspensions come from models that output a risk score, not a sentence. Demand a reason from a system that does not produce one, and you get a manufactured rationalization that can mislead more than a blank. The drafters of the GDPR appear to have seen this. The binding text guarantees a person the right to human review and to contest a solely automated decision. The explicit right to an explanation sits in Recital 71, a non-binding preamble, and the operative articles leave it out. Legal scholars have argued for a decade over whether that omission was deliberate. The safer reading is that lawmakers wanted contestability they could guarantee, and stopped short of an explanation they could not.

The word every carries the last objection. A mandate with no exceptions treats an active fraud ring and a confused florist the same way, and hands the first group the one thing it wants. A full account fits some suspensions and endangers others.

What “explain” should mean

A wide gap sits between a blank notice and the filter’s source code, and the workable answer lives inside it. Google could name the specific policy and sub-category, not just the umbrella. It could state the type of behavior that flagged the account, a redirect or a multiple-account link or a verification mismatch, without publishing the feature weights that detected it. The notice could say whether a model or a person decided. And every appeal could reach a human who can overrule the machine. That package tells an honest business what happened and how to respond, and it keeps the detection internals out of the evader’s hands.

This sits close to what the European rules already demand. The Digital Services Act asks for a statement that is as precise and specific as reasonably possible under the circumstances, a standard rather than a blank check, and it pairs the reason with a route to challenge it. Adding a duty to expose the model’s inner logic would cross from fairness into self-sabotage. The line the law draws, a real reason plus a real appeal, is the line worth defending.

What Google has already changed

Google has already moved under pressure. In November 2025 the company reported cutting incorrect account suspensions by more than 80%, answering appeals 70% faster, and resolving 99% of them within 24 hours. It made those changes under regulatory and competitive heat, without a global law forcing it to explain every case.

The core complaint survives the improvement. The notice still names a policy without the specifics, and an automated reviewer still handles most appeals. A 24-hour answer that repeats the same vague reason solves the speed problem and leaves the clarity problem untouched. Faster and clearer are different goals, and Google has chased the first harder than the second.

So, forced to explain?

Put the evidence together and the answer splits in two.

Should Google be forced to give a meaningful reason and a real appeal? Yes. The European Union already requires it through the Digital Services Act and the Platform-to-Business Regulation, and regulators began enforcing it in 2025 and 2026. Across most of the world the open question is enforcement, not principle.

Should Google be forced to explain every suspension with the exact trigger and no exceptions? No. The gaming risk is real, the volume is enormous, and lawmakers carved out high-volume commercial fraud and left a hard right to explanation out of the binding text. A precise-signal mandate would arm the operators the policy exists to stop.

The defensible standard sits between a bare policy name and the filter’s internals. Require the specific policy and sub-category, the type of behavior flagged, whether a machine or a person decided, and an appeal a human can overrule. Allow narrow exceptions for active fraud. That gives an honest business enough to understand and contest its suspension, and it gives the evader nothing new. Google holds the data to meet that bar. So far it has chosen speed over candor.

A word on who is telling you this

Weigh the source, this one most of all. A firm that diagnoses suspensions lives in part off the opacity we are criticizing here. If Google explained each suspension well, fewer owners would need someone to work out what went wrong. We are arguing against that interest, with the limits the evidence supports. And we have not claimed that Europe’s rules settle the matter for Google Ads. The reach of the Digital Services Act and the Platform-to-Business Regulation into a given Ads suspension, as opposed to a Search or Shopping action, remains contested, and we have flagged it rather than smoothed it over.

If you are inside a suspension now

Your leverage depends on where you operate. Inside the EU or the EEA, the law gives you tools many advertisers never use. The Platform-to-Business Regulation entitles a business user to a statement of reasons and a route to clarify the facts through the platform’s internal complaint process. The Digital Services Act adds a statement-of-reasons right and disclosure of whether a machine decided. The GDPR gives you a right to human review of a solely automated decision that significantly affects you, and a right to contest it. Document the notice you received, or the absence of one, and invoke those processes by name.

Outside the EU, the legal footing is thinner, and the quality of your appeal carries more of the weight. Either way, this is general information, not legal advice. A lawyer in your jurisdiction can tell you which of these rights you can press.