Google is often seen as the safest place to spend your ad budget. Compared to social platforms, its intent signals are stronger and its fraud defences are more mature. After all, isn’t Google the industry standard for digital advertising?

That reputation is earned, but it’s incomplete.

Our 2026 Global Invalid Traffic report analyzed unprotected, monitor-only Google campaigns to understand how much click fraud actually reaches advertisers today.

The results show a clear pattern. Invalid Traffic (IVT) exposure varies sharply by campaign type, and some formats are far riskier than most teams realize.

In this blog, we’ll be discussing the Invalid Traffic (IVT) by Google campaign type section of the report. You can get your copy of the full report here for a more in-depth analysis of IVT by Google campaign type, as well as a detailed look at IVT by ad platform, IVT by country, IVT by Industry, and much more. 

Alternatively, watch our video rundown of the key findings from the report here: 

Below is how click fraud really breaks down across Google campaign types, ranked from worst to best.

Google Video Partners is the biggest risk

Google Video Partners (GVP) recorded the highest invalid traffic rate in the dataset at 20.62%.

GVP inventory extends far beyond YouTube, running ads across a large network of third-party partner sites. While YouTube’s native inventory benefits from stronger controls, partner sites often don’t.

This aligns with earlier investigations showing ads running on low-quality placements, auto-playing muted in small windows, or appearing on made-for-advertising sites users never intentionally visit. These environments are optimised for volume, not intent.

For advertisers, the result is predictable. High impressions, inflated view metrics, and a large share of traffic that never had a chance of converting.

Google Display remains a problem

Display campaigns recorded an average IVT rate of 12.02%.

Our data shows that certain placements consistently drive extreme levels of invalid activity. In some cases, IVT rates exceeded 50% on individual domains. Examples include pseudo-gaming and content sites built purely to monetise clicks before being shut down and replaced.

This churn-based ecosystem makes enforcement difficult. By the time a domain is flagged, it’s often already been cycled out.

The contrast within the Display Network is stark. Legitimate publishers such as nytimes.com recorded just 0.76% IVT, while accuweather.com came in at 4.78%. The risk isn’t universal, but it is uneven, and it demands active placement monitoring.

Shopping campaigns are quietly inflated

Google Shopping recorded an average IVT rate of 8.46%.

A significant share of this comes from automated price-scraping activity. These bots check availability, monitor competitors, and compare pricing, generating clicks with zero purchase intent.

This activity isn’t always malicious, but it’s still wasteful. It inflates CPCs, distorts conversion rates, and interferes with bid strategies, particularly for retailers operating on thin margins.

When margins sit in single digits, even modest IVT can materially increase acquisition costs.

Demand Gen inherits display risk

Demand Gen campaigns averaged 8.45% IVT, almost identical to Shopping.

The reason is structural. Demand Gen relies heavily on Display Network inventory and broad, interest-based targeting. That wider reach increases exposure to made-for-advertising sites, automated scrolling environments, and placements optimised for clicks rather than intent.

As a result, Demand Gen tends to sit above Search and Performance Max in IVT exposure, reflecting its role higher up the funnel.

Performance Max spreads the risk

Performance Max recorded an average IVT rate of 7.88%.

This makes sense given how PMax works. It pools inventory across Search, Display, YouTube, Gmail, and Discover. While that reach can drive scale, it also means PMax inherits the risk profile of Google’s higher-IVT channels.

Advertisers often struggle to see exactly where traffic is coming from, which makes diagnosing IVT harder. At scale, even a sub-8% rate can translate into significant wasted spend.

Search remains the cleanest

Search campaigns recorded the lowest average IVT rate at 5.21%.

Search benefits from clear intent signals and tighter inventory controls. Users actively looking for answers are harder for bots to convincingly imitate at scale.

That doesn’t mean Search is immune. In high-CPC industries, even small volumes of invalid traffic can be costly. Based on our data, a business spending $3M annually on paid search can expect to lose more than $156,000 to invalid clicks alone, before factoring in lost revenue opportunity.

AI Max for Search: Why automation is changing the risk profile

One emerging signal worth watching is AI Max.

While still early, our analysis of a luxury retail advertiser participating in the AI Max beta showed a clear shift. Campaigns without AI Max maintained a stable 3.7% IVT rate. Campaigns with AI Max enabled saw that rise to an average of 5%, with peaks of 6%. 

That’s a 35% increase in invalid traffic after enabling AI Max.

The reason is straightforward. AI Max widens query matching significantly, relying on blended signals rather than explicit keywords.

Broader reach increases the chance of capturing low-quality or non-human traffic tied to higher-IVT queries.

Google Ads: Click fraud easily bypasses Google filters

Google’s lower overall IVT rates reflect years of investment driven by litigation and advertiser pressure. But scale cuts both ways.

Its vast Display and Video Partner inventory remains an easy target. Campaign types designed to maximize reach inevitably widen exposure to invalid activity. Automation amplifies this effect if visibility doesn’t keep pace.

Some obvious click fraud gets refunded. Most “soft invalids” do not. These clicks behave just well enough to pass filters, waste budget, and pollute optimization signals.

The takeaway for paid media professionals

Not all Google campaign types carry the same risk.

Video Partners and Display sit at the top of the danger list. Shopping and Demand Gen quietly inflate costs through automation and scraping. Performance Max trades transparency for scale. Search remains the safest, but still leaks at volume.

The common mistake is treating Google as a single risk profile. It isn’t.

Understanding how click fraud affects your Google Ads account is the difference between trusting automation blindly and scaling with control. Cleaner traffic leads to cleaner signals. Cleaner signals lead to better optimisation.

And when some campaign types are four times riskier than others, structure matters just as much as spend.

Download your copy of the 2026 Global Invalid Traffic Report here to learn where your ad budget is most at risk - and what you can do right now to protect your ad spend efficiency.