SEO
Join 500+ brands growing with Passionfruit!
Google quietly updated three Search Central documents this week, and the combined effect is something the search industry has not had before: a short, public rubric for evaluating GEO agencies and AI search tools. The guidance is sharper than the headlines suggested, but also more useful than it looks. For any buyer about to sign a contract with a GEO partner or pay for an AEO platform, the new pages are worth reading as a checklist rather than a warning.
What Google actually published
The change spans three pages on Search Central.
The new page on third-party SEO tools, services, and advice sets out Google's position on agencies and tools claiming Google approval, internal ranking data, or guaranteed performance. The single line that matters most: "Third-party tools don't have access to our internal ranking data." Anything a tool reports about your visibility is its own observation, not a window into Google's systems.
The companion AI optimization guide now addresses AEO and GEO directly, telling readers to "Prioritize effective SEO strategies over 'AEO/GEO hacks'" and naming three tactics it considers noise: artificial content chunking, llms.txt files, and pursuit of inauthentic third-party mentions.
The Do you need an SEO? page added a buyer-side question about whether the agency's AI search advice aligns with Google's own AI optimization guidance. The summary across all three pages: Google is not banning the practice, but it is drawing a line on the claims.
The five questions Google now expects you to ask
Cut the marketing language from the new pages and what is left is a clean five-question rubric for evaluating a GEO agency or AI visibility tool before you sign.
Does the agency or tool cite Google's own published guidance as the source for its recommendations, or does it cite itself?
Does the agency or tool avoid claiming Google approval, endorsement, or a special relationship?
Does the agency or tool clearly label its own data as observed tracking, rather than implying access to Google's ranking signals?
Does the agency or tool refuse to guarantee rankings, citations, or AI traffic numbers?
Is the AEO or GEO advice consistent with Google's published AI optimization guide, or does it contradict it?
Any vendor that answers cleanly on all five is operating inside Google's stated terms. Any vendor that flinches on two or more is selling something Google has now explicitly cautioned against.
What this means for the tactics Google called out by name
Three tactics got named in the AI optimization update, and each deserves a separate verdict.
The llms.txt file gets the strongest dismissal. Google says it does not use the file and creating one is not a Search ranking factor. The honest position is the one we took in our earlier explainer on llms.txt: the file is optional, possibly useful for engines other than Google, but no agency should sell it as a Google requirement.
Content chunking, the practice of artificially splitting prose into AI-friendly fragments, also gets a clear no. Google states its systems handle multi-topic pages already and extract the relevant section without help. Structural rewrites sold as AI optimization should improve readability for humans first, not pander to a model that does not need the help.
Inauthentic mentions, the practice of paying for or fabricating brand citations across blogs and forums, gets the harshest treatment. Google flags this as something its anti-spam systems already act on. Any GEO playbook leaning on link-farm-style citation building should be retired now.
What the guidance does not say
Reading the headlines on this update, you would think Google had condemned the entire AEO and GEO category. The actual text is more measured.
Google explicitly acknowledges that some third-party services may be helpful, and the third-party tools page never tells businesses to stop using agencies or tools. The criticism is precise: it targets vendors invoking Google's name to imply endorsement, vendors selling their predictions as Google data, and vendors guaranteeing outcomes nobody can guarantee. Search Console is recommended as the first-party data anchor, which is the only part of the new pages that reads like a sales pitch.
How to use the rubric on your next vendor call
The rubric becomes practical the moment you bring it into a sales conversation. Ask the agency to show you a recent recommendation and walk through which Google document supports it. Ask the tool vendor how its visibility score relates to actual Google data, listening for whether the answer separates "our observation" from "Google says." Ask for the methodology behind any benchmark you are quoted, and ask how the vendor handles the gap between observed citations and verifiable traffic, which our research team has written about at length.
A vendor who welcomes those questions is the one Google's new guidance was written to protect, and a vendor who deflects is the one it was written about. The choice between the two has rarely been this easy to make.
Ready to win search?
If you are evaluating a GEO agency or AI visibility tool right now, run them through the five questions above first. Passionfruit operates both sides of the table: an agency with named case studies across DTC, fashion, and B2B SaaS, and Passionfruit Labs, an AI visibility platform built to publish its methodology rather than hide it. Book a strategy call and we will walk through how your current stack scores against Google's rubric.
Frequently Asked Questions
Did Google ban GEO and AEO services?
No. Google cautioned buyers against vendors making approval claims, guaranteeing rankings, or implying access to internal data. The practice itself was not deprecated.
Are AEO and GEO still legitimate disciplines?
Yes, with a sharper definition. Google's position is that optimizing for AI search experiences is part of SEO rather than a separate discipline, and good work in the category follows Google's published guidance rather than invented hacks. Our longer take: Is GEO still SEO?.
Should I delete the llms.txt file on my site?
You can leave it in place if you already shipped one. Google has confirmed the file is not used for Search ranking, so do not invest more time in maintaining it as a Google strategy.
Should I stop using third-party SEO and AEO tools?
No. Google's guidance explicitly says tools may be helpful and names no specific platforms to avoid. The caution is about how the tools' data is framed.
Is Google telling me not to hire an agency?
No. The Do you need an SEO? page continues to support working with agencies and now publishes explicit criteria for evaluating one.
How does Search Console fit into a GEO measurement workflow?
Search Console remains the only source of first-party Google data and should anchor every measurement framework. Pair it with AI-engine-specific tracking from a platform like Passionfruit Labs for the picture Search Console cannot give you.
