Links August 26, 2026
Links in gambling and crypto: what works and what does not
In gambling and crypto the link risks are the highest: Google’s spam policy, local advertising bans and regulators all act at once.
Gambling and crypto are niches where every link is both an SEO question and a legal question. Leaving out either one is the most common mistake.
What Google says
Google’s spam policy describes link spam as links made mainly to influence rankings, such as paid links and excessive link exchanges. It also notes that paid links are a normal part of advertising and sponsorship online and do not violate the policy when qualified with rel="nofollow" or rel="sponsored".
The same policy has two more points relevant to these niches:
- Site reputation abuse: publishing third-party content on a strong host site to exploit its authority
- Expired domain abuse: buying a lapsed domain and reusing it mainly to lift rankings
On 28 August 2026 Google announced it will not enforce site reputation abuse manual actions in the European Economic Area (effective 30 August, at the European Commission’s request). The policy itself stands and still applies outside the EEA. Algorithms may also treat a section separately there.
The extra layer: local regulation
Example from Finland: according to law firm Borenius’s May 2026 overview, the new Gambling Act bans affiliate and influencer marketing and lists permitted channels exhaustively. The same overview says marketing must stay moderate and may not target self-excluded players. The full Finnish Act takes effect on 1 July 2027.
In Denmark the government’s advertising bill has its first reading on 22 October 2026, with a target start of 1 January 2027. According to trade press, affiliates and influencers would have to follow the same restrictions as operators. The bill has not yet been passed.
What works and is safe
- Informational content that answers a real question: rules, safety, taxes, licence checks
- Local-language media coverage and expert opinion
- Every agreed paid placement qualified with rel="sponsored"
- A limited number of hand-picked, on-topic placements in independent publications
What does not work and is risky
- Buying links in bundles from “DR 50+ sites” with no topical fit
- Expired domains and private blog networks
- Sponsored content in a prominent publisher’s subsection created only for rankings
- One text translated into ten languages and placed without local review
A checklist before every link
- Is the source a real publication with real readers?
- Is the text on topic and does it give the reader something new?
- Does the rel attribute match the agreement (sponsored or nofollow for paid)?
- Does the target country have marketing rules to check first (ask a lawyer too)?
- Would you be comfortable if the link appeared in a public report tomorrow?
This is not legal advice. Rules change quickly, so always check them against current law and a local lawyer.
What to do in the first month
- Audit existing links: source, labelling, target country and topic
- Remove or relabel links whose rel attribute does not match the agreement
- Pick one country and check its marketing rules with a lawyer
- Agree on three topical publications and write original content for them
This order reduces risk and gives a report a client can actually verify.
Three questions
How do sponsored and nofollow differ?
Google accepts both as qualification for paid links. rel="sponsored" says more clearly that a link is paid and is therefore preferred.
Is a guest post allowed?
A guest post is not itself a violation. The problem arises when the text is created mainly for the link, is low-value, or is placed in a prominent site’s subsection to exploit its authority.
Is there no penalty in the EEA any more?
Google has not enforced site reputation abuse manual actions there since 30 August 2026, but the policy stands. It also does not free you from national advertising rules or from the question of reader trust.
