Disclosure
TradeVulcan publishes Dispatch and sells contractor lead-management and calling software. TradeVulcan is not affiliated with Google. This article does not report an independently reproduced targeting failure in a contractor account.
The Google Local Services Ads location controversy has an important update: Google says the results that drew complaints were intentional.
Search Engine Roundtable reported October 1 that specialists Len Raleigh and Anthony Higman questioned out-of-state firms appearing in Fresno-area results. On October 2, Google AdsLiaison responded that the results were "working as intended" because the firms served people seeking that type of legal service in Fresno. The publication added Google's response to its report.
That makes this a different story from a confirmed nationwide targeting bug. The cited examples concerned legal services. They do not establish that Google sent plumbers or HVAC contractors jobs outside their selected territories, or charged those contractors incorrectly.
Search Engine Roundtable: October 1 report with Google's October 2 response ↗
Three locations can appear in one lead
Google's LSA overview says an ad may display the business's city, where its owner lives or works, or cities the business serves. The city printed beside a name is therefore not a complete targeting audit.
For a contractor, separate three pieces of information: the searcher's location, the advertiser's displayed location and the address where the work is needed. A property manager traveling out of state can still need service at a building inside your territory. A local caller can be arranging work for a relative who lives outside it.
The office needs the job address to distinguish those situations. A telephone area code is a contact detail, not proof of the property's location.
Location intent is part of the documented targeting model
Google's service-area guide describes two ways a selected geographic area can match: a searcher's estimated physical location and a location named in the search. Its example allows a person in Los Angeles searching for toilet repair in San Francisco to see an advertiser that selected San Francisco.
The same guide warns that city-level estimates and overlapping postal areas complicate ZIP-code boundaries. It says an ad can appear to someone in an unselected postal area when their location is estimated only at the selected city level.
This documentation is a reason to inspect the exact configuration, not evidence that every unwanted inquiry is legitimate. It also does not establish that Performance Max migration caused the disputed legal-services results.
Google: geographic intent, city-level estimates and postal-area targeting ↗
What each piece of evidence can tell you
| Evidence | Useful for | Does not prove by itself |
|---|---|---|
| Search-result screenshot | Documenting what appeared for a particular query | Where the eventual job is located |
| Saved campaign settings | Documenting included and excluded areas at that time | That every caller requested work in those areas |
| Confirmed service address | Determining whether the requested job fits your territory | Whether Google charged the interaction |
| Lead-level charge record | Checking billing and later credit status | Whether the job would have been profitable |
Do not build the budget around a geographic refund
Google's current automated lead-credit documentation says it does not support credits for "job type not serviced" or "geo not serviced" leads. That is an existing documented policy, not a new restriction announced with this October discussion.
Google says leads are assessed initially and can be reassessed later. Its reporting distinguishes charged, not charged, in-review and credited interactions; most credits are applied within 30 days. The page recommends adjusting service areas, job types and categories and submitting lead feedback when results are unwanted.
Keep a bad-fit lead and a confirmed billing error in separate categories. A refund request is not a replacement for qualifying the work, and submitting feedback does not guarantee a credit.
Google: automated lead credits, excluded categories and lead feedback ↗
The cost per useful opportunity is the number to watch
Here is a hypothetical campaign, not a Google price benchmark or an account affected by the reported dispute. Assume 100 paid leads cost $80 each, for $8,000. If 90 represent jobs the business can actually serve, acquisition spending is $88.89 per serviceable opportunity. If only 75 are serviceable, it is $106.67.
The dashboard can show the same $80 cost per paid lead in both cases. The contractor experiences different economics because the denominator that matters to the office has changed. This illustration assumes no credits and makes no assumption about bookings, completed jobs or revenue.
Illustration: the same paid-lead cost can hide a weaker fit
| Same $8,000 spend | 90 serviceable leads | 75 serviceable leads |
|---|---|---|
| Paid leads | 100 | 100 |
| Displayed cost per paid lead | $80 | $80 |
| Cost per serviceable opportunity | $88.89 | $106.67 |
Put the service address early in the conversation
A geography audit starts at intake. Ask where the work is needed, what service is requested and when the customer needs it. Record those answers consistently before promising availability. A caller does not need a lecture about advertising settings; they need a clear answer about whether your team can help.
When a job falls outside the normal territory, use a defined escalation rather than asking each CSR to invent a price or exception. Distinguish an area the business never serves from one it can cover for planned installations but not emergency response.
That distinction should reach the marketing team. The service territory on the website, the dispatch team's real capacity and the campaign's selected areas should describe a coherent operating promise. More map coverage is not automatically more usable demand.
Review a bounded sample before rewriting the campaign
Choose a recent period and inspect the actual lead records. For each inquiry, retain the lead identifier, request type, confirmed job city or ZIP, charge status and outcome. Save dated settings so a later configuration change does not erase the comparison. Keep customer details in authorized business systems rather than posting recordings or addresses publicly.
Separate out-of-territory jobs from unoffered services, duplicate requests, unanswered calls and qualified customers who chose someone else. Those categories require different fixes. A missed call is not proof of a geography problem, and a nearby job can still be a poor economic fit.
Then make a specific change and review the result. Narrowing a territory may reduce unusable leads but also remove profitable work. Compare completed-job contribution and travel burden, not just whether the total lead count went down.
Escalate evidence, not a conclusion borrowed from social media
For a genuine unexplained mismatch, give the platform or agency the dated settings, query information when available, lead identifier and requested service location. Explain the discrepancy you observed. Do not represent a screenshot of another industry's ad as proof of what happened in your own account.
Ask the agency to identify which settings it actually reviewed and which observations it inferred from public listings. Ask for billing records separately from screenshots of ad placement. That makes it easier to distinguish a configuration issue, a misunderstood location signal and a defect that merits technical investigation.
There is no need to choose between ignoring unwanted leads and calling every surprising result a bug. A measured audit protects the advertising budget while leaving room for the evidence to change the diagnosis.
The address that matters is where the work happens
Google has answered the reported legal-services example. Contractors should use that clarification as a prompt to inspect their own evidence, not as a reason to assume a nationwide outage. Align the campaign with the work you can deliver, qualify the actual job site and measure the cost of opportunities your team can use.
Methodology
Checked October 4, 2026. Google's October 2 response is reproduced in Search Engine Roundtable's updated report and concerns legal-services results. Dispatch did not inspect an affected contractor account, independently reproduce a bug, establish incorrect billing or determine a connection to Performance Max migration. Targeting and lead-credit descriptions come from the linked Google documentation. The $8,000 example is hypothetical original arithmetic, not observed campaign data. No interviews were conducted. The Googleplex photograph is archival; derivatives remain CC BY-SA 4.0.
Sources
- Google Local Service Ads location report, updated with Google's October 2 response — Search Engine Roundtable
- About reaching customers with your Local Services Ads — Google Local Services Help
- About Automated Local Services Ads lead credits — Google Local Services Help
- Local Services Ads overview: displayed business location — Google Local Services Help
- Googleplex, June 2019: original photograph — Wikimedia Commons
- Photo and resized derivatives: Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 — Creative Commons