Are links between domains of the same group penalized by Google?

Does Google really differentiate between sites owned by the same entity?

Google's position is clear: owning multiple domains is not a problem in itself. The algorithm understands that a business might manage a .com for international use, a .co.uk for the UK, and a .fr for France. These inter-domain links do not automatically trigger a manual penalty.

But here's the catch: Google evaluates the naturalness of the link, not the ownership of the domain. A justified link in editorial content is acceptable. Fifty identical footer links across all your sites? That looks like manipulation. The line lies in the perceived intent, not in the technical act of linking domains under the same control.

What does Google mean by 'excessive linking'?

Google intentionally provides no quantitative threshold. Three linked domains? Probably safe. Fifteen domains with complete footer cross-linking? Red zone. The term 'excessive' remains subjective, and it is precisely this ambiguity that poses a challenge for practitioners.

The trigger element seems to be systematic repetition: same anchors, same placements, same pattern across all sites. The more mechanical the pattern, the greater the risk. Google aims to detect networks of sites set up solely to manipulate PageRank, not legitimate organizations with multiple business domains.

Why is the footer specifically mentioned?

The footer has historically been the preferred playground for black hats. Easy to deploy on hundreds of pages, difficult for a visitor to detect, perfect for passing link juice. Therefore, Google has learned to give less weight to footer links, even ignoring them completely in some contexts.

When Google says 'do not link too many sites in the footer,' it is specifically pointing to this practice: using the footer as an internal PBN. One or two footer links to legitimate partner sites? Acceptable. A complete grid of ten domains? Alarm signal. The implicit advice: prioritize justified contextual links in the main content.

• Google tolerates inter-domain links from the same group if they are organic
• The risk arises from systematic repetition, not the absolute number of domains
• Footer cross-linking is the main suspicious marker
• No official threshold: Google intentionally maintains the ambiguity around 'excessive'
• Prioritize justified contextual links over mechanical structures

Is this statement consistent with what we observe on the ground?

Yes and no. On multi-country e-commerce sites, we often see inter-domain footer links without visible penalty. Media groups connect their various brands without issue. So far, Google's tolerance is holding true.

But the devil is in the details. I've seen cases where four legitimate domains with footer cross-linking faced a sharp decline in visibility after a Core Update. It's impossible to prove direct causality, but the timing seemed suspicious. [To confirm]: Google claims it does not automatically penalize, but what is the real share of algorithmic detection vs. manual? No public data on that.

What nuances should we add to this official position?

First point: Google talks about 'organic' links. What exactly distinguishes an organic link from a manipulative link between two sites of the same group? The anchor? The context? The added value for the user? Google does not clarify, and this is where interpretation becomes risky.

Second nuance: the statement concerns manual penalties, not algorithmic impact. A link may not trigger a sanction while being worth zero. Google can very well ignore your inter-domain footer links without formally penalizing you. Result: no message in Search Console, but no SEO benefit either.

In which cases does this rule not apply?

If your domains are clearly satellites set up for link building, Google's tolerance collapses. A network of themed blogs with thin content, all linked to a money site? It's a classic PBN, and Google treats it as such, even if you own all the domains.

Another problematic case: identical domains with duplicate content and massive cross-linking. Google detects the pattern and may determine that the entire setup constitutes manipulation. The legal boundary of common ownership is not enough to justify incoherent linking for the user.

How can you structure inter-domain links to stay compliant?

Rule number one: justify each link with user logic. A link from .fr to .com in an article mentioning an international feature? Logical. A footer with ten flags linking to ten country domains? Borderline. Always ask yourself: does this link provide information or facilitate real navigation?

Prioritize contextual links in the main content over repetitive structures. An editorial link in a blog post to another site in the group has more value and less risk than a systematic footer link. Vary anchors, placements, and contexts. Avoid mechanical patterns.

What specific mistakes should you absolutely avoid?

Classic error: the tentacled footer linking all your domains in a complete grid. Do you have five sites? Don't create twenty footer links (5×4) just because it's technically possible. Limit yourself to the most relevant links, ideally one or two maximum per page.

Another pitfall: over-optimized anchors between sites of the same group. 'Best lawyer Paris' in exact match linking to your .fr from the .com? Google knows you're self-linking. Use natural anchors: brand name, naked URL, generic formulations. Aggressive optimization between your own sites raises a red flag.

How to audit existing links and correct detected issues?

Export all your internal and external links from each domain in the group. Identify systematic patterns: same anchors, same placements, same source pages. If you spot a mechanical pattern, Google can likely detect it too.

Proceed with gradual removal: first eliminate the least justifiable footer links, keeping only those that have a real navigation logic. Monitor your positions for three months. No degradation? You were probably in the gray area. Improvement? You were on the edge. Stability? Continue the cleanup.

• Audit all footer links between domains of the group and remove those without clear user logic
• Prioritize contextual links in editorial content over repetitive structures
• Vary anchors: eliminate over-optimized exact matches between sites of the same owner
• Limit the number of linked domains: aim for less than 3-4 cross-links per site if possible
• Document the rationale for each inter-domain link for future audits
• Monitor positions after each structural change to the linking setup