I think the line moved a little today. ReachLocal forwarded a statement by Google on this issue. Read it here

That reads like spin to me.

I don't like the decision Google made because it gives a competitive advantage to large advertisers; since they did not define a process for how I or any SMB might use this if tracking is done using proxy technology. I don't argue that the result for the end user is the same... I argue that that is justification to make a bad decision in favor of a large advertiser.

Things don't go from good to bad overnight... people would freak out. No, things go from good to bad gradually and always with very good justification. And that line moved... just a little bit... today.

I understood it that all NEW ads would would be enforced on April 1, existing ads may slip under the radar for awhile.

I had some ads disaproved this morning with good reason. I think in time all will be discovered.

The problem I have is that Google made a policy, said that they were going to enforce it "without exception" and then does not enforce it and comes back later and says that they do not enforce it.

Is this a policy or isn't it a policy?

I manage a large company's Adwords campaigns and have been hit HARD by the new ruling. To claim they're not enforcing it AT ALL is erroneous. Why they're enforcing it in some instances, and not across the board, is anyones guess. Be prepared eventually for a major disruption in your campaigns if you continue formatting the old way, though. It's proven to be a major hassle for me.

They appear to be enforcing it pretty strictly at the root domain level, but not as much at the page level, where exceptions can be granted for things like tracking paramaters, page names that are too long, etc.

I had another question about violations. Is it legal for a large corporate entity to place multiple adwords for the same website to displace competition? Look for example at a SF urgent care search. For Urgent care in San Francisco. The same company and website occupies the top two lines, san fran oncall. I thought this was an adword violation. If you also look closely two other of the sites are downtownmedical and fastdocs which are the same company, but have two different websites. The answering machine says both names and the address and suite number are one in the same. Would this be an example of two companies doing the same thing, but one trying to hide it a bit. Seems odd to me. Thanks for any responses.

I try to abide by the new rule, but Google does not allow enough space to include my company's particular page URL, so it is impossible for me to abide by this new rule. The site is written in aSP, so each URL is a bit lengthy.