Fake order triggers Google Ads algorithm to overspend €32,000 budget

A fake order worth €100,155,937.50 caused Google Ads algorithms to dramatically increase spending for an e-commerce client, according to Ruben Runneboom, a Google Ads expert at TaskForce Performance Marketing. The incident occurred during the week of September 11, 2025, while the team prepared for the PPC Summit in Copenhagen.

According to Runneboom's detailed LinkedIn post, the fraudulent order was placed using a "pay on invoice" payment option, allowing the perpetrator to complete the purchase without actual payment. The result caused campaign costs to surge from normal levels to €32,111.93, representing a €15,482.94 increase over typical spending patterns.

"It turned out that someone had placed a fake order with an absurdly high conversion value," Runneboom explained in his post. "In this case, €100,155,937.50. I can assure you, that's well above our usual daily results."

The fake transaction generated an artificial ROAS of 109,989%, which Google's machine learning algorithms interpreted as exceptional performance signals. This caused the automated bidding system to increase budget allocation aggressively, believing the campaigns were achieving extraordinary results. The incident demonstrates vulnerabilities in algorithm-driven advertising platforms when confronted with deliberately manipulated data.

"Google interpreted the inflated ROAS 109989% in this case, as a signal that results were easy to achieve, which led the algorithm to start overspending aggressively," Runneboom detailed. The actual ROAS dropped substantially while budget consumption accelerated beyond normal parameters.

The technical mechanics behind this vulnerability stem from Google's Smart Bidding systems, which rely on historical conversion data to predict future performance and adjust bids accordingly. When conversion values spike dramatically, the algorithms assume market conditions have improved and increase bid amounts to capture additional opportunities.

Industry analysis reveals this type of manipulation represents a growing concern for digital advertisers. According to a 2025 white paper analyzing 4.15 billion performance ad clicks in 2024, an average of 5.1% were fraudulent across various networks. This translates to estimated annual losses of approximately $37.7 billion globally, with projections reaching $45.2 billion by 2026.

The incident occurred on September 11, 2025, and was detected through monitoring systems that flagged unusual spending patterns. Campaign data showed conversion values reaching 100,258,485.42 during the affected period, far exceeding normal e-commerce transaction amounts.

TaskForce Performance Marketing implemented immediate corrective measures following the discovery. The team placed a data exclusion on the fraudulent transaction through Google Ads, effectively removing its impact from algorithmic calculations. This standard procedure prevents corrupted data from continuing to influence campaign optimization.

"First thing we did was to place a data exclusion on that particular data set," Runneboom confirmed. Google Ads data exclusions allow advertisers to remove specific time periods or transactions from Smart Bidding calculations, restoring normal algorithmic behavior.

The company established multiple preventive measures to avoid similar incidents. They configured automatic email alerts triggered when daily conversion values exceed €20,000 with fewer than 30 conversions, indicating potential fraudulent activity. This threshold-based monitoring system provides early warning capabilities for unusual transaction patterns.

Additional security measures included blocking the originating IP address, though Runneboom acknowledged limitations: "We've blocked the IP address (hopefully they weren't using a VPN)." The team also began implementing technical modifications to delay purchase event firing until actual payment completion for invoice-based transactions.

These defensive strategies reflect broader industry recommendations for protecting PPC campaigns from fraudulent activity. Google's own systems include automated detection capabilities designed to identify and filter invalid traffic, but sophisticated attacks can sometimes bypass initial screening mechanisms.

The fraudulent order's timing coincided with Google's ongoing efforts to combat advertising fraud across its platform. Recent Google enforcement reports revealed the removal of over 39.2 million advertiser accounts in 2024, representing a 208% increase from the previous year. These actions utilized advanced artificial intelligence systems to identify policy violations and fraudulent activities at scale.

For e-commerce businesses, the incident highlights critical vulnerabilities in conversion tracking systems. When payment methods allow order completion without immediate verification, malicious actors can exploit the gap between order placement and payment processing to manipulate campaign data.

Industry experts recommend implementing conversion tracking modifications to address this vulnerability. Rather than firing conversion pixels immediately upon order completion, businesses should consider triggering tracking events only after payment verification, particularly for invoice-based or delayed payment methods.

The financial impact extended beyond direct advertising costs. With campaigns consuming budget at accelerated rates due to algorithmic miscalculations, the opportunity cost includes missed impressions during normal market conditions and potential revenue losses from disrupted campaign performance.

Campaign optimization suffered additional consequences through skewed performance data. The artificial conversion value inflation created misleading metrics that could have influenced long-term strategic decisions if not detected promptly. This demonstrates the importance of regular data validation procedures for maintaining campaign integrity.

The incident also reveals potential quality score implications. When campaigns experience dramatic conversion rate fluctuations followed by immediate corrections, Google's quality algorithms may require time to recalibrate performance assessments. This could temporarily affect ad auction competitiveness even after data exclusions are implemented.

From a technical perspective, the case illustrates machine learning system vulnerabilities when confronted with extreme outlier data. Google's algorithms process vast amounts of conversion data to identify patterns and optimize bidding strategies. Single extreme values can disproportionately influence these calculations, especially during periods with limited conversion volume.

The perpetrator's choice of payment method suggests sophisticated understanding of e-commerce tracking mechanisms. By selecting "pay on invoice" options, they could complete purchase processes that trigger conversion tracking without providing verifiable payment information. This technique exploits the temporal gap between order placement and payment verification.

TaskForce Performance Marketing's rapid response prevented more severe financial consequences. The team's monitoring systems detected the anomaly within hours rather than allowing it to persist across multiple days or weeks. This quick identification limited the total budget impact to €32,111.93 rather than potentially much higher amounts.

The incident occurred during the final week of the PPC Summit Copenhagen preparations, adding operational complexity to the response. Despite external commitments, the team prioritized immediate corrective actions, demonstrating the critical importance of maintaining vigilant campaign oversight even during busy periods.

According to conversations in the post's comment section, similar incidents have affected other PPC professionals. One commenter reported experiencing a comparable situation with a €10 million fake purchase. Another suggested implementing Google Tag Manager conditions to cap conversion values at predetermined maximums, though Runneboom noted this approach might mask rather than alert teams to fraudulent attempts.

The discussion revealed additional technical solutions, including setting conversion value limits within tracking implementations. However, experts emphasized the importance of maintaining visibility into fake order attempts rather than simply filtering them silently. This approach enables security teams to identify and address ongoing threats rather than masking their existence.

Industry practitioners also highlighted the utility of Google Ads' data exclusion functionality, which many consider essential for account health maintenance. This feature allows advertisers to remove specific time periods or conversion events from Smart Bidding calculations without permanently deleting historical data.

The incident's broader implications extend to automated bidding strategy reliability. As advertising platforms increase reliance on machine learning optimization, the potential impact of data manipulation grows correspondingly. Single fraudulent transactions can now trigger algorithmic responses affecting thousands of euros in advertising spend within hours.

For marketing agencies managing multiple client accounts, the case underscores the importance of implementing comprehensive monitoring systems. The combination of spending alerts, conversion value thresholds, and regular data validation procedures becomes essential for protecting client investments and maintaining campaign performance.

The technical resolution process involved multiple Google Ads features. Data exclusions removed the fraudulent conversion's influence on Smart Bidding algorithms. IP blocking attempted to prevent repeat attempts from the same source. Modified conversion tracking delayed event firing until payment verification, addressing the root vulnerability.

This multi-layered response strategy reflects current best practices for addressing PPC fraud incidents. Rather than relying on single protective measures, successful defense requires combining preventive monitoring, reactive corrections, and systematic process improvements.

The case also demonstrates the importance of maintaining detailed campaign documentation. Runneboom's ability to share specific figures, dates, and technical details enables other practitioners to learn from the incident and implement similar protective measures. This knowledge sharing contributes to broader industry awareness of emerging fraud techniques.

Looking forward, the incident highlights ongoing challenges as fraudsters develop more sophisticated techniques for exploiting automated advertising systems. The combination of machine learning optimization and delayed payment verification creates opportunities for manipulation that require constant vigilance and adaptive security measures.

The €100 million figure chosen by the perpetrator suggests deliberate calculation rather than random selection. This amount would be sufficient to dramatically skew algorithmic calculations while remaining within the realm of possibility for large e-commerce transactions, potentially delaying detection compared to obviously impossible values.

Campaign recovery following the incident required time for Google's algorithms to recalibrate performance expectations. Even after implementing data exclusions, Smart Bidding systems needed several days to return to normal optimization patterns based on genuine conversion data rather than the manipulated values.

The experience reinforces the critical importance of human oversight in automated advertising campaigns. While machine learning systems provide powerful optimization capabilities, human monitoring remains essential for detecting anomalies, implementing corrections, and maintaining system integrity against malicious manipulation attempts.

Timeline

• September 11, 2025: Fake order placed worth €100,155,937.50 using pay-on-invoice method
• Same day: Google algorithms interpret 109,989% ROAS as performance signal, begin aggressive budget increases
• Within hours: Campaign costs surge to €32,111.93, representing €15,482.94 increase
• Same day: TaskForce Performance Marketing team detects anomaly during PPC Summit preparations
• Immediate response: Data exclusion applied to remove fraudulent transaction from algorithmic calculations
• Follow-up measures: IP blocking implemented, automatic alerts configured for €20K+ conversion values with <30 conversions
• Ongoing: Team develops payment verification requirements for invoice-based conversion tracking

Related Stories

• Google Ads API delays mandatory conversion environment field until September - Technical requirements for improved conversion tracking and attribution accuracy
• Google introduces message-based lead conversion tracking in Google Ads- New beta conversion tracking capabilities for message interactions
• Microsoft Advertising removes over one billion ads in 2024 trust safety drive - Industry-wide efforts to combat fraudulent advertising activities

Summary

Who: Ruben Runneboom, Google Ads expert at TaskForce Performance Marketing, experienced the incident while managing an e-commerce client's campaigns. The perpetrator used a pay-on-invoice method to place the fraudulent order without providing actual payment.

What: A fake order worth €100,155,937.50 caused Google's algorithms to misinterpret campaign performance, generating an artificial ROAS of 109,989% and triggering aggressive budget increases. Campaign costs surged to €32,111.93, representing a €15,482.94 increase over normal spending levels.

When: The incident occurred on September 11, 2025, during the week of PPC Summit Copenhagen preparations. Detection and corrective measures were implemented on the same day through monitoring systems and immediate team response.

Where: The fake order was placed through the client's e-commerce platform using Germany-based operations, affecting Google Ads campaigns managed by TaskForce Performance Marketing. IP blocking was implemented though VPN usage remained a concern.

Why: The incident exploited the gap between order placement and payment verification in invoice-based payment systems. Google's Smart Bidding algorithms interpreted the extreme conversion value as genuine performance improvement, automatically increasing budget allocation to capture perceived opportunities.