Google Ads: Justification required for access removal
Google Ads is tightening user access management: if you want to remove a user's access to a Google Ads account, you must now provide a justification. The request is not executed immediately but forwarded to another administrator for approval, including the justification you entered. For agencies, in-house teams, and companies with multiple account owners, this is more than a minor UI update. It changes how access changes are documented, reviewed, and traced.
Previously, authorized administrators could often remove users directly from an account without a formal approval process or mandatory documentation. That was fast operationally but carried risks: accidental removals, unclear responsibilities during staff changes, and missing audit trails on sensitive accounts. With the new requirement for justification and two-step approval, Google is responding to demands for security, compliance, and traceable account governance in larger advertising structures.
What changes in the workflow
The core of the update combines a mandatory field with an approval chain. An administrator initiates the removal of a user and must enter a justification. This request does not take effect immediately but is sent to another administrator in the same account. That second responsible person sees both the planned access change and the submitted justification and decides on approval. Only after this confirmation is access actually revoked.
From a day-to-day perspective, every planned removal becomes a documented process with visible second-level review. Teams that previously handled access changes informally or without a fixed process must adapt their workflows. At the same time, organizations with clear role models gain an advantage because the platform now structurally supports part of internal control.
Why this matters for PPC and marketing teams
Google Ads accounts are often highly sensitive systems. They control budgets, conversion tracking, audience lists, and sometimes entire Performance Max or Shopping structures. An accidentally removed user can stall campaigns, block reports, or interrupt access to critical settings. Conversely, former employees or external service providers without a clean offboarding process may remain in the account longer than intended, creating security and compliance risks.
The justification requirement forces teams to pause briefly before each removal and record the reason in writing. Typical cases include terminations, project completions, role changes, security incidents, or cleanup of outdated freelancer access. When these reasons are stored directly in the system, a traceable history emerges that simplifies internal audits and later inquiries. For agencies with many client accounts, this is especially important because access changes happen frequently and under time pressure.
Impact on MCC structures and permissions
In manager accounts with multiple levels and parallel access rights, the change is noticeable. Not every role can manage users, and not every administrator is suitable for approvals. Teams should therefore review who may initiate removals and who is designated as the second reviewer. If only one person has admin rights, the new workflow can create bottlenecks. Clean role distribution, with at least two administrators and clear responsibilities, becomes an operational requirement rather than an optional best practice.
- Designate at least two administrators per critical account.
- Separate approval owners from operational campaign managers.
- Introduce offboarding checklists with mandatory justification templates.
- Audit MCC access regularly and clean up outdated roles.
Governance, security, and compliance
Many companies are subject to internal or industry-specific access control requirements. Those managing ad budgets in five- or six-figure ranges need traceable processes for permission changes. The Google Ads adjustment aligns with this trend: four-eyes principle, documented decisions, and fewer spontaneous single actions. It does not replace a full IAM strategy but reduces the likelihood that critical access is changed without a trail.
For security teams, it matters that justifications should be factual and consistent. Vague wording such as "no longer needed" helps little in later reviews. Better are concrete details: project ended, agency change, security incident, role change, or expiration of a temporary access grant. The more consistently teams proceed here, the more valuable the resulting documentation becomes for internal controls.
| Step | Action | Goal |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Initiate removal and enter justification | Document the case |
| 2 | Approval by second administrator | Four-eyes review |
| 3 | Access is revoked | Clean up the account |
| 4 | Supplement internal offboarding documentation | Ensure audit readiness |
Practical recommendations for agencies and in-house teams
To use the new process smoothly, teams should integrate it into existing SOPs. This starts with an up-to-date overview of all users and roles per account. Teams then define which justification building blocks apply to recurring cases and who acts as the approver when the initiating admin is unavailable. For agencies, a central offboarding template that project leads, account managers, and technical administrators can all use is recommended.
Client communication should also be adjusted. If a client holds admin rights themselves, they must be informed about the new approval step so removals do not stall on pending consent. In larger organizations, a monthly access review pays off: which users are still active, which roles are too broad, and where documented justifications are missing for past changes?
Avoiding common mistakes
A common pitfall is assuming the new workflow is only relevant for terminations. In fact, it affects every planned removal, including internal reorganizations or cleanup of test access. Another mistake is keeping only one administrator in the account, which can block the approval chain. Unclear justifications that undermine the purpose of documentation are equally problematic. Teams should therefore treat the process as a governance instrument, not as an extra hurdle.
With mandatory justification and administrator approval, Google Ads brings user management closer to established security standards. For paid search teams, this means more structure in access changes, better traceability, and a clear reason to review role models in accounts and MCCs. Those who standardize offboarding, approvals, and documentation now will avoid delays and reduce risks in sensitive advertising accounts.
