Invalid traffic (IVT) has been causing problems for marketers for years. Click fraud, bot activity, and other forms of wasteful traffic can drain ad budgets, distort campaign performance, and limit overall return on investment (ROI). 

To help combat this, Google Ads allows advertisers to exclude specific IP addresses associated with fraudulent or irrelevant traffic. 

The problem? Google only gives you 500 IP exclusions. Not 500,000, or even 5000—just 500.

Say your analytics data reveals thousands of suspicious IPs—a common occurrence—but you can only block 500. What now? 

Over the next few minutes, expect to learn why Google enforces the limit, and the actionable strategies you can use to overcome it—helping you maintain cleaner traffic and protecting your ad spend from waste. 

Why does Google limit IP exclusions to 500 per campaign?

If you’re not consistently rotating IP lists and constantly working to manage their effectiveness, 500 exclusions is a drop in the ocean compared to the vast number of suspicious IPs poised to siphon your ad budget.

So why doesn’t Google give us more? 

Google says their 500 IP limit is in place due to three primary factors:

• Their preference for automated detection
• Technical system and infrastructure constraints 
• Business incentives

Let’s take a deeper look into the reasoning behind each:

Google’s automated fraud detection

Google’s official stance is that its invalid traffic detection system is more effective at identifying and filtering fraudulent activity than manual advertiser interventions. Their reasoning is that:

• Manual exclusions are prone to errors and outdated data.
• Large-scale IP exclusions could inadvertently block legitimate traffic, such as shared office networks, ISPs, or mobile carriers.

While it’s true that blindly blocking massive lists of IP addresses will likely lead to inefficiencies, no savvy performance marketer would take such an indiscriminate approach. 

In reality, advertisers meticulously analyze traffic patterns and use IP exclusions as a precise, targeted defense against click fraud. By capping IP exclusions at 500 per campaign, Google severely limits advertisers’ ability to do this.

Of course, the 500 IP limit wouldn’t be so bad if Google’s detection filters were adept at filtering out invalid traffic (IVT) at the source. 

While Google’s automated fraud detection does catch some simpler forms of invalid traffic, studies have shown that significant amounts of IVT slips through the net—especially sophisticated invalid traffic (SIVT), which deploys advanced techniques to mimic legitimate user behavior, making it far harder to detect and remove at scale. 

When analyzing IVT in the financial services sector, we found that 78% of all detected invalid traffic fell into the SIVT category.

The case against Google’s IVT detection system becomes stronger when you look at the stats. A Juniper Research report estimated that ad fraud cost marketers $84 billion in 2023—accounting for 22% of total online ad spend. This shows that the in-built IVT detection filters put in place by Google and other ad platforms simply aren't robust enough to tackle the majority of invalid traffic. 

And the problem is only getting worse.

As AI models advance at an ever-increasing pace, so does the complexity of SIVT—making it even harder for Google’s bot-detection systems to keep up. By 2028, Juniper Research predicts ad fraud losses will surge to $172 billion, more than doubling today’s figures. 

In short, Google’s automated fraud detection does provide a very basic level of protection against the simplest forms of IVT. But as advertisers face persistent and growing amounts of SIVT, the ability to manually block a higher number of IPs is critical. The 500 IP exclusion limit restricts the actions advertisers can take, leaving them vulnerable to IVT that Google’s systems fail to catch. 

For those managing high-budget campaigns, more granular control over exclusions isn’t just helpful—it’s essential to preventing wasted ad spend.

Data provided by popular ad platforms, such as Facebook and Google, provide an incomplete picture of the success of advertising campaigns.
‍Elisha Sudlow-Poole, Senior Research Analyst at Juniper Research

Technical and performance constraints

Google processes billions of ad impressions daily. If every advertiser could exclude thousands of IPs per campaign, the system would need to check each impression against potentially enormous IP address lists in real time. 

Google argues that this would increase latency, and impact Google’s ad-serving efficiency.

By capping exclusions at 500, Google aims to balance advertiser control with system performance. Unfortunately for advertisers craving more granular control over their campaigns, Google has currently skewed far towards the latter. 

If Google gave advertisers unlimited IP exclusions, it’s likely there would be a real impact on performance. However, increasing the limit to 5,000 rather than 500 likely wouldn’t require much investment from Google. The fact that they haven’t increased it at all suggests that other underlying factors—not technical limitations—are the main reasons behind the cap.

Business incentive considerations

Some industry analysts argue that Google benefits financially from restricting IP exclusions. Even though Google does issue some automated refunds for confirmed fraudulent clicks, not all IVT is detected immediately. 

By limiting how much traffic advertisers can manually block, Google can continue to collect significant amounts of ad revenue from fake and fraudulent clicks.

If advertisers had full control, they might block entire ISPs, regions, or networks known for invalid clicks—potentially reducing Google’s ad revenue. 

The company’s ad-based revenue model depends on scale, meaning the more impressions and clicks that flow through the system, the more revenue Google generates. Even if a fraction of these clicks come from IVT, they still contribute to Google’s overall earnings before refunds are issued.

Investing in more advanced fraud detection measures would require significant R&D costs, infrastructure updates, and continued investment. Google’s current approach results in fraud prevention taking a backseat to profitability, ensuring it doesn’t allocate excessive resources to eliminating IVT that doesn’t materially impact advertiser retention. 

If advertisers continue spending despite some level of IVT, Google has little financial incentive to eliminate every fraudulent click.

Additionally, Google’s business model relies on maximizing ad inventory availability. If advertisers had more control over exclusions, they could block entire publisher networks or traffic sources that frequently generate IVT, reducing overall ad inventory. This could lead to lower auction competition, decreased ad spend, and ultimately, less revenue for Google.

While Google maintains that fraud detection is a top priority, the IP exclusion cap suggests they prefer a managed approach that limits advertiser intervention. 

By keeping control over fraud prevention largely within its own system, Google ensures that it dictates how IVT is handled—rather than allowing advertisers to control their exposure according to their own level of risk-tolerance through manual IP exclusions.

Unfortunately for advertisers, the 500 IP exclusion limit is more than likely sticking around. With no real business incentive to take more meaningful steps towards preventing IVT—marketers need to do what they can to optimize blocking effectiveness, given the existing constraints. 

How to overcome the 500 IP exclusion limit

If you’re managing a high-volume campaign and repeatedly hitting Google’s 500 IP limit, there are a few key strategies you can implement to help maximize protection against IVT:

Rotate and prioritize IP exclusions

Instead of maintaining a static list of IP exclusions, refine your list dynamically:

• Prioritize high-risk IPs - Identify which IPs are generating the most invalid clicks and prioritize those for exclusion.
• Use data-driven rotation - Regularly remove older or inactive IPs to make room for the most recent threats.
• Automate list management - Use automation tools or scripts that detect IVT and dynamically update exclusion lists.
• Focus on recency - Fraudulent traffic sources change over time, so a stale blocklist is far less effective than one that evolves based on new threats.

Ad fraud prevention tools like Lunio provide automated IP list rotation, ensuring you’re blocking the most relevant threats rather than holding onto outdated exclusions. By rotating IPs dynamically, you maximize the impact of the 500 IP limit.

It’s not ideal, but 500 effectively blocked IPs is certainly better than 0. 

Segment campaigns to expand exclusions

The 500 IP exclusion limit applies per campaign, not per account. This means you can increase the total number of exclusions by segmenting campaigns strategically. 

However, be cautious of hyper-segmentation—especially if you’re using Smart Bidding. Splitting campaigns too much can reduce the algorithm’s available conversion data, potentially harming performance.

Only segment when there’s a strong strategic rationale, such as:

• Splitting campaigns by geography, device type, or audience where clear performance differences exist.
• Applying unique exclusion lists to each campaign based on specific risk levels.
• Ensuring high-risk traffic is handled separately from lower-risk segments.

For example, one campaign could target high-risk regions with a dedicated exclusion list, while another focuses on verified audiences with fewer exclusions. The goal should be to improve efficiency—not just to bypass the 500 IP limit.

Use geo exclusions instead of IP blocking

If a significant portion of fraudulent traffic comes from specific locations, you can use geo exclusions as an alternative to IP exclusions.

• Exclude entire countries, cities, or regions with high IVT rates.
• Reduce bids in high-risk locations instead of outright exclusions.

This method is particularly effective for international ad campaigns, where fraud often originates from specific geographic hotspots.

You can also follow the steps below to quickly exclude underperforming cities:

1. Open up your locations in Google Ads
2. Filter by City 
3. Sort by Spend 
4. Check any cities that have 0 conversions + high spend 
5. Exclude and monitor 

Exclude bad placements and audiences

For Display and Video campaigns, fraudulent clicks often originate from low-quality websites, apps, or audiences rather than specific IPs. Instead of relying solely on IP exclusions, refining your placement and audience targeting can be far more effective:

• Use Lunio’s PMax exclusion list (40K+ flagged placements) to block low-quality sites and apps that inflate ad spend.
• Leverage Lunio’s Display Network exclusion list (100K+ domains) to prevent ads from appearing on fraudulent or low-value placements.
• Apply negative audience lists to filter out low-intent users.
• Set frequency caps to limit exposure to repeat fraudulent clicks.

By shifting the focus from individual IP blocking to broader exclusion strategies, you can eliminate a significant amount of invalid traffic while maximizing the efficiency of your ad spend.

Adjust bids strategically

Fraudulent activity tends to follow patterns. By analyzing campaign data, you can identify trends and adjust bids accordingly:

• Lower bids on mobile devices (particularly Android, which is commonly used in click farms).
• Reduce bids during late-night hours when there are much lower volumes of legitimate traffic. 
• Adjust bids downward in geographic locations with high fraud activity.

Bid adjustments help minimize exposure to IVT without blocking traffic outright.

Engage Google support for large-scale fraud cases

If you experience persistent fraudulent traffic, you can always try escalating the issue to Google Ads support.

• Provide detailed traffic logs and patterns indicating IVT.
• Highlight abnormal spikes in invalid clicks beyond typical campaign behavior.
• Request refunds for IVT that Google’s automated system failed to detect.

While Google won’t increase your 500 IP limit, they may issue click refunds or take additional steps to mitigate widespread fraud cases—if you can effectively prove your case, and wait for the refunds to be issued. 

Use third-party fraud prevention tools

Third-party IVT detection platforms go beyond Google’s automated protections by monitoring traffic and providing more advanced fraud prevention. 

With real-time monitoring, dynamic exclusion management, and granular fraud insights, Lunio enables advertisers to work much more effectively within the 500 IP exclusion cap to maintain cleaner, higher-quality traffic across all campaigns. 

“Automated traffic makes up almost half of all internet traffic worldwide. Generally speaking, automated traffic comprises two types of automation: good and bad bots. Concerningly, bad bots alone account for nearly a third of all traffic, at 32%, with their volume increasing for the fifth consecutive year.”
Imperva Bad Bot Report 2024

Using Lunio to bypass Google’s 500 IP exclusion limit:

For advertisers facing persistent IVT and hitting Google’s 500 IP exclusion limit, ad fraud prevention tools like Lunio offer an effective solution. 

Google’s static exclusion system requires manual updates and often fails to keep up with the fast-moving nature of fraudulent traffic. Lunio helps bridge this gap by providing real-time IVT detection and automated exclusion management.

How Lunio helps advertisers work around Google’s limitations:

1. Automated fraud detection - Lunio’s advanced detection algorithm accurately identifies all forms of sophisticated invalid traffic, preventing wasted spend without betting on post-click refunds.
2. Dynamic IP exclusion management - Instead of manually updating blocklists, Lunio automates the rotation of exclusion lists, ensuring the most relevant threats are blocked while staying within Google’s limits.
3. Granular IVT insights - Unlike Google’s limited reporting on IVT, Lunio provides advertisers with detailed reports on fraudulent traffic sources, helping refine targeting and exclusion strategies. (Learn how leading group travel company G Adventures used Lunio’s insights to identify and strategically pause underperforming keywords, allowing budget to be reallocated to areas more likely to drive conversions)

4. Cross-platform protection - Lunio integrates with Google Ads, Microsoft Ads, Facebook Ads, and all other major platforms, ensuring that fraudulent traffic isn’t simply rerouted from one network to another.
5. Optimized ad performance - By filtering out invalid clicks before they impact campaign results, Lunio helps advertisers preserve high-quality traffic, improve conversion rates, and maximize return on ad spend (ROAS).

Final thoughts

Google’s 500 IP exclusion limit presents a challenge for advertisers dealing with large-scale click fraud, but there are ways to work around it. 

By combining IP rotation, campaign segmentation, geo exclusions, placement filtering, and bid adjustments, advertisers can significantly reduce the impact of IVT.

While Google’s automated fraud detection catches some of the more simple forms of invalid traffic, the high rates of undetected fraud in paid search and display ads indicate it’s not enough. 

With ad costs continuing to rise and marketing efficiency becoming a main priority for businesses, Lunio provides a solution to effectively ensure marketing budgets are focused on humans, not bots. This not only drives higher ROAS, but also improves lead quality and ensures your analytics aren’t contaminated by fake clicks.

Want to find out exactly how much of your ad budget is being wasted on invalid traffic? Request a free 14-day traffic audit to gain a deeper understanding of your traffic quality.

‍