Facebook Ad Account Quality Check (2027)

There is no Facebook ad account quality score

Start here, because it saves you a week.

Meta does not publish a numeric account health score. There is no 0-100 scale, no pass mark, no traffic-light rating, and no hidden figure that a support agent could read out to you if only you asked nicely. We checked this against Meta's own documentation: the introduction to the Advertising Standards, the Account Integrity advertising standard, the Account Integrity page in the Community Standards, and the enforcement pages. No account-level score appears in any of them.

This matters more than it sounds, because the first thing most people find when they search this question is a confident scale with precise-sounding thresholds. A healthy number here, stricter scrutiny below there, delivery throttling below that. It reads like insider knowledge. It is not sourced to Meta, because it cannot be: the thing it purports to measure has never been published. Those numbers come from content farms writing to the shape of the query, and they have become the dominant answer on the topic through sheer repetition.

So the honest reframe is this. Account quality is a status, not a measurement. Every business asset you own is in one of a small number of states: fine, warned, restricted, or disabled. Each asset carries its own state independently. There is no aggregate. Checking your account quality means reading those states one at a time and understanding what each one means, which is a genuinely useful exercise that takes ten minutes and produces an actual answer.

Why everybody remembers a score that is gone

The belief persists for two good reasons, and neither of them is stupidity. People are half-right, twice.

The first reason: Facebook really did publish a score, and it really did die. The single 1-10 relevance score, shown on each ad, was replaced from 2019 by three ad relevance diagnostics, per Social Media Examiner's May 2019 report on the rollout. A whole generation of media buyers learned to optimise against that number, watched it disappear, and reasonably assumed it moved somewhere rather than ceased to exist. The number people remember genuinely existed. It just genuinely died.

The second reason: what replaced it looks like a score-shaped hole. The three diagnostics are quality ranking, engagement rate ranking, and conversion rate ranking. Note the word: they are rankings, not scores. Each one returns Below Average, Average, or Above Average, and each is relative, measured against other ads competing for the same audience rather than against an absolute bar. They attach only to individual ads, not to campaigns, ad sets, or your account. And they need more than 500 impressions before they populate at all, so a new ad shows you nothing.

Put those together and you get the exact experience that generates the myth. Someone goes looking for an account number. They find a per-ad, non-numeric, relative ranking that is blank on half their ads. That does not feel like the answer, so they conclude the real score must be somewhere else, and they go hunting for a dashboard that would show it. Then a search result hands them a scale. The loop closes.

A useful side effect of understanding the diagnostics properly: a Below Average quality ranking is not a compliance signal and it does not put your account at risk. It is a statement about how your ad's creative is landing relative to competitors chasing the same eyeballs. The fix is a better ad, not an appeal.

What Account Quality actually contains

The dashboard as advertisers know it today dates from a refresh Social Media Today reported in January 2021, replacing an older and more limited Business Manager tab. It is not a new feature, and any guide presenting it as a recent addition is telling you something about its own research rather than about Meta.

What that refresh introduced was breadth. Account Quality surfaces the accounts and assets that need attention across a wider set of enforcement types than the old tab did: Community Standards violations, fact-checker ratings on content, intellectual property violations, clickbait flags, event takedowns, and misleading job postings. No score was introduced then, and none has been introduced since.

So the mental model is a queue, not a gauge. Account Quality answers one question: which of my assets currently has a problem, and what is it. If nothing is flagged, the dashboard is quiet, and a quiet dashboard is the whole of the good news available to you. There is no gradient of health above "no issues" that you can climb.

The assets it tracks matter as much as the issues. Meta's Account Integrity advertising standard makes clear that a restriction can land on your Business Account or on any single asset underneath it: an individual ad account, a Page, or a personal user account. That is precisely why the account-score framing fails. There is nothing for a single number to describe. Your Business Account can be perfectly clean while one ad account inside it is restricted, or your ad account can be untouched while the personal profile of the person who administers it is the thing that has been actioned. You have to walk the list.

Reading a restriction, a warning, and a rejection

Three different things get conflated constantly. They have different stakes and different responses.

A rejected ad is the narrowest and most common. One creative failed review against a specific advertising policy. Your account is not in trouble; one ad did not pass. Meta states that ad review is typically completed within 24 hours, though it can take longer, so a rejection normally surfaces within a day of submission. Account Quality lets you review previously disapproved ads to see which policy was cited and request a manual review. The single most valuable habit here is to actually read the named policy rather than skimming the summary line, because the policy text usually explains which element failed: the copy, the image, the targeting, or the landing page. Meta's Advertising Standards have long stated that review covers all of those, including the destination page, which is why an ad with clean creative can still be rejected for what sits behind the click.

A warning is a notice that something was actioned and that a further problem would escalate. It is the cheapest signal you will ever get. Treat it as the thing that stops you from finding out what the next tier feels like.

A restriction is the serious one. In Meta's own words on the Account Integrity standard, a restricted asset "can't be used to advertise across Meta technologies". Not throttled. Not deprioritised. Cannot advertise. A restriction is binary: the asset can advertise or it cannot, and there is no partial tier inside Account Quality between those two states. This is another reason the invented thresholds ("below this number your reach is limited") mislead. They describe a graduated punishment ladder, keyed to a score, that Meta's documentation does not describe. Graduated limits do exist elsewhere in Meta's machinery, as the Events Manager and feedback score sections below cover, but they are separate mechanisms with their own surfaces, not rungs on an account-quality scale.

If you are staring at one of these right now, we have dedicated walkthroughs: read Facebook ad account restricted if you can still see the account but cannot advertise, and Facebook ad account disabled if access itself is gone.

A worked example of walking the list

Abstract advice is easy to nod at and hard to act on, so here is the shape of a real check.

Say delivery on your main account dropped to nothing overnight and nobody changed anything. The instinct is to look for a health number that explains it. Instead, walk the assets in order of blast radius, largest first.

Start with the Business Account itself, because a restriction there takes everything underneath it with it. If it is clean, move down to the ad account. If that is clean too, check the Page you are advertising from, which is the asset most often actioned without the advertiser noticing, because Page enforcement arrives through Page notifications rather than through Ads Manager. Then check the personal user account of whoever administers the setup. A restriction on a single administrator's profile can stop that person from publishing while the assets themselves are untouched, which presents as "my ads stopped" and gets misdiagnosed as an account-level problem for days.

If every asset is clean and delivery is still dead, you have learned something valuable: this is not enforcement. Now the candidates are billing, an exhausted budget, a spending limit, an audience that has stopped delivering, or category tiering in Events Manager that never touched the dashboard at all. Notice how much of that diagnosis a single score would have obscured rather than helped. "Your account health is 62" tells you nothing about which of those seven things happened.

The order matters because each layer explains the ones below it. Working bottom-up, you can spend an hour rewriting a creative that was never the problem.

Appeals, and the Business Support Home question

Here is where we have to be straight with you rather than tidy.

Meta's Transparency Center is unambiguous about one thing: it names Account Quality as the surface where you "request a review of the decision" for a rejected ad or a restricted ad account, Page, user account, or Business Account. That is Meta's own documentation, and it is the anchor.

But that is not the only path advertisers encounter. Business Support Home also carries an account status overview from which you select an asset and request review, and Account Quality itself contains an account status section of its own. The two surfaces overlap. No primary Meta source explains how they relate, whether one supersedes the other, or whether the entry point varies by asset type, by account, or by rollout. Account Quality is where the review lives, and Meta says so plainly. Which door you walk through to reach the right review flow is the part nobody outside Meta can state with confidence, and the guides that hand you one memorised sequence of clicks contradict each other on it.

The practical rule that survives all of this: follow the link in your own notification. When Meta actions an asset, the notice it sends is scoped to that specific asset and that specific decision, and the link it contains routes you to the right review flow for it. A memorised click path can drop you into a generic surface that does not know which decision you are appealing. Your notification does.

The same discipline applies to deadlines. You will find specific appeal windows quoted around the web, sometimes to the day: 180 days to submit documents, a hard cut-off after which reinstatement is impossible. None of those windows trace back to a Meta source, and they disagree with each other. If a window applies to your case, it is stated in the notification you received and echoed in your own dashboard. That is the only deadline that binds you, and it is the one to work backwards from. Do not let a number from a blog decide your urgency in either direction.

One more boundary worth drawing clearly. Meta's 24-hour figure is for ad review. It says nothing about how long a review of an enforcement decision takes. Vendor claims on appeal turnaround exist, they disagree with each other by an order of magnitude, and none trace to Meta. Plan as though you do not know, because you do not.

The numbers Meta does publish, and why they are not your account score

Meta does publish a numbered enforcement ladder, and it is worth knowing precisely so you can tell it apart from the thing it gets mistaken for.

The strike system belongs to the Community Standards, and it governs content accounts, not ad account quality. A first strike is a warning with no further restriction. Strikes two through six bring time-limited restrictions on features. A seventh strike carries a one-day restriction on creating content. An eighth carries three days. A ninth carries seven days. Ten or more carries 30 days.

A second number sits alongside it, on Meta's disabling accounts page: "After 5 strikes, you may receive additional 30-day restrictions from creating content, or we may remove your account, depending on the severity and frequency of the violations." That is the closest thing to a published removal threshold anywhere in Meta's documentation, and it is worth reading twice, because the qualifier is doing as much work as the number. Five strikes does not trigger removal. It opens the door to it, subject to severity and frequency.

Read both of those as what they are: content moderation ladders. They govern personal Facebook and Instagram accounts, not ad accounts. Neither is a rating of your advertising, neither aggregates into an account score, and importing either into a conversation about ad account quality recreates exactly the confusion this page exists to clear. If you have seen "five strikes and you are out" quoted at an ad account, that is this rule, lifted out of its scope. The rule is real. The scope it gets quoted in is not.

There is a real bridge between the two worlds, though, and it is worth knowing. Meta states that severe violations, in areas such as dangerous organisations and adult sexual exploitation, carry additional penalties beyond the standard ladder, and those penalties include restriction from creating ads. So content behaviour on a personal account genuinely can reach your ability to advertise. That is the actual mechanism people are groping for when they talk about account health, and it is a cliff rather than a slope.

The restrictions that never reach the dashboard

The most useful thing on this page, if you advertise in certain categories, is this: watching Account Quality is not sufficient.

The health and wellness advertising restrictions that Search Engine Land documented in March 2025 are notified through Events Manager, in the Settings and Diagnostics tabs, rather than through Account Quality. The structure runs to three tiers: first, limits on core setup, then a restriction on standard events such as Add to Cart and Purchase, then full optimisation restrictions, which prevent the account from optimising toward mid-funnel and lower-funnel events while upper-funnel campaigns keep running. An advertiser can be moved through those tiers while the dashboard they are monitoring stays quiet.

Knowing whether this applies to you is less obvious than it sounds, because advertisers rarely think of themselves as being in the health category. Real ad examples show how wide the net is. A clinic running a before-and-after result across a course of sessions, a supplement brand running a testimonial about skin and joint comfort, a gym running a coached transformation: none of those advertisers would describe themselves as health advertisers, and all three sit squarely in the territory where before-and-after imagery, implied personal attributes, and outcome claims attract both policy review and event tiering. The examples below are representative of the angles brands in these categories actually run. If your creative looks like any of them, your category is sensitive whether or not you had filed yourself under health.

The lesson generalises past health and wellness. Meta's enforcement is not centralised into one screen, and the assumption that one dashboard is a complete view of your standing is the assumption that gets people blindsided. If your category is sensitive at all, add Events Manager Diagnostics to your rounds as a separate, deliberate check.

Proactive hygiene that is actually current

Since there is no score to raise, the work is entirely preventative. Social Media Examiner's breakdown of why ad accounts get shut down lists five practical causes, and they remain the honest list.

Repeated declined payments. The dullest cause and one of the most common. A card that keeps failing is an account risk, not just an accounting annoyance. Keep a backup payment method on file and treat a decline notice as urgent.

Low Page quality. Your Page is a tracked asset in its own right, and its standing feeds your ability to advertise. It is also the asset most often actioned without the advertiser noticing, because the notice arrives through Page notifications rather than through Ads Manager.

Poor ad quality ranking. Worth including with a caveat: this is a performance signal, not a compliance one, and a Below Average ranking is not an enforcement event. It belongs on the hygiene list because sustained poor rankings correlate with the kind of content users hide and report, and that feedback does have a path to enforcement.

Poor-quality landing pages. Pop-ups, misleading content, and broken destinations. Remember that Meta's review covers the landing page, not just the ad, which means a page you changed after approval is a live exposure. Click your own ad from a phone, on cellular data, logged out, at least once per campaign.

Repeated policy violations. Each rejection you shrug off is a data point. The account that gets restricted is rarely the one that made a single mistake.

What is not on this list, and should not be on yours: the 20% text-in-image rule. Search Engine Journal reported it removed in September 2020, around the time the Text Overlay Tool page that used to measure it started redirecting. Low text remains a best practice for performance, but it is not an enforcement threshold and it has not been one for years. It still appears in hygiene checklists, including inside otherwise solid older articles, which is a good reminder that a checklist ages.

What about the feedback score?

One number does appear to exist, and it is not the one people mean.

Meta's business portfolio feedback score, previously called the customer feedback score, is drawn from post-purchase surveys sent to people who bought from you, and Meta documents it on its own help page. It is ecommerce and seller specific. It measures your buyers' experience of your product, shipping, and service, not your policy compliance, and it is a separate system from Account Quality.

Meta documents the current thresholds on that help page, and the banding circulating around it describes a 0-5 rating that tightens as it falls: a band where feedback is considered poor and penalties approach, a lower band where penalties apply and ads reach fewer people at higher cost, and a bottom band where ads are disabled. Treat the banding as directional and read Meta's page for the live numbers before you act on it, because this is a mechanism where the exact cut-off decides the response.

Note what that banding is and is not. It is a real graduated system, which makes it the closest thing in Meta's machinery to the throttling ladder the invented account scores describe, and that resemblance is probably part of why the myth has legs. But it is bolted to your buyers' experience of your product, shipping, and service, not to your policy compliance, and it does not roll up into Account Quality or into anything Account Quality shows you. Framing it as an account health score inside your team will produce the wrong response to it. A low feedback score is a customer experience problem. The fix is in your fulfilment and your product page, not in your ad account.

A ten-minute check you can actually run

Seven rows, none of which produce a number. That is the point.

Bringing it together

Checking your ad account quality is a real task with a real method. Open the dashboard, walk each asset, read each flagged issue against the policy it names, and follow your own notification if you need to appeal. Then look in the places the dashboard does not cover, especially Events Manager if you are in a sensitive category, and keep the boring hygiene tight: a payment method that works, a landing page that matches the ad, and a habit of reading rejections instead of resubmitting through them.

What you cannot do is optimise a score, because there is not one. The 1-10 relevance score was replaced from 2019, its successors are per-ad rankings rather than an account rating, the strike ladder governs content rather than advertising, and the feedback score measures your buyers rather than your compliance. Every confident scale you find with thresholds attached is describing a system that Meta has never documented.

That is a less satisfying answer than a number. It is also the one that leaves you looking in the right places, and it means the next time delivery goes quiet you will spend your afternoon reading a policy instead of hunting for a gauge that was never on the dashboard. If a decision has already landed and you need to write the appeal itself, our Facebook ad account appeal template walks through what to include and what to leave out.