Affiliate Link Disclosure

No Comments
Affiliate link disclosure
TL;DR: Affiliate link disclosure means telling readers, clearly and up front, when a link earns you a commission. It is a legal requirement (the FTC in the US, and equivalents elsewhere) and it is also how Google expects you to handle paid or commercial links, with rel="sponsored" or rel="nofollow". Skipping it risks trust, regulatory action, and manual actions on your links.
Check type
Links / Compliance
Two jobs
Reader + rel attribute
Rel value
sponsored
Governed by
FTC + Google
Effort to fix
Low

Two disclosures, not one

"Affiliate link disclosure" quietly bundles two separate obligations that people love to confuse, and you need to satisfy both.

The first is a disclosure to your reader. When you recommend a product and earn a cut if they buy through your link, the reader deserves to know that before they click. In the US this is enforced by the Federal Trade Commission under its endorsement guides. A clear, conspicuous statement like "This post contains affiliate links, meaning we may earn a commission if you buy through them" satisfies the human side.

The second is a machine disclosure to Google. Affiliate links are commercial, monetized links, and Google asks that you flag them so they are not treated as plain editorial endorsements. Since 2019 the correct attribute is rel="sponsored" (rel="nofollow" is still accepted and fine). This tells Google not to pass ranking signals through a link you are financially motivated to place. Miss this and you are technically running a link scheme in Google's eyes, which can trigger a manual action.

Why it matters

  • Legal exposure. The FTC has pursued undisclosed endorsements, and its guidance is explicit that disclosures must be clear and hard to miss, not buried in a footer or hidden behind a "more" link. Other jurisdictions (the UK's ASA and CMA, the EU, Canada, Australia) have their own equivalents.
  • Google link policy. Google's link spam guidance treats affiliate links as links you should qualify. Unmarked affiliate links at scale can be seen as attempts to pass PageRank for money, which is squarely against their policy.
  • Reader trust. Honest disclosure, done well, actually helps. Readers who see you are upfront about commissions tend to trust the recommendation more, not less. The sites that hide it are the ones that read as sketchy.
  • Platform requirements. Affiliate programs themselves (Amazon Associates most famously) require disclosure in their terms. Violate it and you can lose the account and the earnings.

One affiliate link, two disclosures to get right 1. HUMAN DISCLOSURE Visible text near the link: "We may earn a commission..." Clear, conspicuous, before the click. Satisfies the FTC and your readers. 2. MACHINE DISCLOSURE The rel attribute on the link: rel="sponsored" Tells Google not to pass ranking signals through a paid link.

rel attribute values, and when to use which

rel valueUse it forPasses signals?
sponsoredAffiliate, paid, or sponsored linksNo (recommended choice)
nofollowGeneric "don't vouch" links, also OK for affiliateNo
ugcUser generated content links (comments, forums)No
sponsored nofollowBelt and braces, fully acceptedNo

Google treats these as hints rather than strict directives, but for affiliate links they are the standard way to stay compliant. Use sponsored as your default for anything you earn a commission on.

How to detect missing disclosure

  • Screaming Frog: crawl and export outlinks, then filter for your known affiliate domains and networks (amzn.to, links from ShareASale, Impact, CJ, Awin, etc.) and check the rel attribute column. Any affiliate link without sponsored or nofollow is a miss.
  • Custom extraction: pull all <a> tags pointing to affiliate networks and audit their rel values in bulk.
  • Manual page review: for the human disclosure, open your top affiliate posts and confirm a clear statement sits above or beside the first affiliate link, not only in a footer or a separate policy page.
  • Search Console: watch Manual actions. Unnatural links flags can relate to unqualified affiliate links at scale.
  • Server side render check: if links are injected by JavaScript or a plugin, confirm the rel attribute is present in the rendered HTML, not just the source.

How to fix it, step by step

  1. Add a clear reader disclosure. Place a short, plain statement near the top of any post with affiliate links, before the first one. Do not hide it in a footer or make people hover to find it. The FTC's whole point is that it should be hard to miss.
  2. Mark every affiliate link with rel. Add rel="sponsored" (or rel="nofollow") to each monetized link. Most affiliate plugins and link cloakers can do this automatically site wide, which is the sane way to handle it at volume.
  3. Audit historical content. New posts are easy, old ones are where the gaps live. Crawl the whole site and back fill rel attributes and disclosures on legacy affiliate posts.
  4. Standardize a disclosure snippet. Write one approved disclosure sentence and reuse it, so every author and template applies it consistently.
  5. Keep a plain language policy page. A dedicated affiliate disclosure or disclaimer page is good supporting practice, but it does not replace the on-page, near-the-link disclosure. You need both.
  6. Re-crawl to confirm. After the fix, re-run Screaming Frog and confirm zero affiliate outlinks without a rel value.
DO
  • Disclose clearly, near the link, before the click
  • Tag affiliate links with rel="sponsored"
  • Automate rel tagging site wide with a plugin
  • Back fill old posts, not just new ones
  • Keep the wording plain and honest
DON'T
  • Bury the disclosure in a footer or policy page only
  • Leave affiliate links as plain followed links
  • Rely on vague hints like "some links may earn"
  • Assume a disclosure page covers the rel attribute
  • Forget your legacy content full of old links

What good looks like

A reader opens your review, sees a one line disclosure right below the intro that plainly says you earn a commission on the links, and reads on with that context. Every product link in the piece carries rel="sponsored" in the rendered HTML. A crawl of your whole site returns zero affiliate outlinks missing a rel value, and your Manual actions report in Search Console is clean. You are compliant with the FTC, honest with your audience, and squared away with Google, all from a change that takes an afternoon to roll out.

FAQ

Is a disclosure page in my footer enough?
No. The FTC wants the disclosure clear and conspicuous, which means close to the affiliate links themselves, not only on a separate page most readers never open. A policy page is fine as a supplement, but you still need the on-page notice near the links.
Should I use rel="sponsored" or rel="nofollow" for affiliate links?
Google recommends sponsored for paid and affiliate links, but nofollow is still accepted, and you can even combine them (rel="sponsored nofollow"). The important thing is that a monetized link is qualified in some way rather than left as a plain followed link.
Do the rel attribute and the reader disclosure cover each other?
No, they are for different audiences. rel="sponsored" is a signal to search engines. The visible disclosure is for humans and regulators. Doing one does not excuse skipping the other. You need both to be fully covered.
Will marking links sponsored hurt my SEO?
No. You should not be relying on affiliate links to pass ranking value in the first place, that is exactly what Google does not want. Qualifying them protects you from link scheme penalties. It costs you nothing you were legitimately entitled to.
What about disclosure rules outside the US?
Most major markets have their own version. The UK has the ASA and CMA, the EU has consumer protection directives, and Canada and Australia have equivalents. The safe approach is the same everywhere: disclose clearly and near the link, and qualify the link for search engines.
Running a monetized site and unsure your links are compliant?

Unqualified affiliate links and missing disclosures are exactly the kind of thing an audit catches before the FTC or Google does.

Get an Advanced SEO Audit

Claude Vincent is a technical SEO consultant focused on crawlability, rendering, and AI-search visibility. He writes the field guides and case studies at SEO ProCheck, with a bias toward the durable, unglamorous work that decides whether search engines and AI answer engines can actually read and cite a site.

About SEO ProCheck

Technical SEO consulting and GEO strategy with 20 years of enterprise experience. Case studies, resources, and tools for search and AI visibility.

Work With Me

Technical SEO audits, GEO strategy, site migrations, and international SEO. Hourly consulting for teams who need hands-on support, not just reports.

Subscribe to our newsletter!

More from our blog