What do they expect is going to happen when you make it harder for potential customers to find alternatives to the loudest bail bondsman? You just make it easier for the fewer, established bondsmen to offer harsher terms.
With that said, there is a right way to approach problems like this[3]: actually help the ostensible victims find a good alternative that does care about not exploiting them.
For an example of the model, here's my experience when I visited a California check-cashing place (long story): before cashing the check, on ridiculous terms, they walk you through several cheaper alternatives (no idea if this is a legal requirement).
I don't see anything in their announcement[2] that suggests they'll take this approach, which would be something like: replace the "bad ads" with ones for the superior, non-profit alternatives that they want these communities to use. It's just unhelpful moralizing from advocates with a dubious model of the harm's causation.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10367855
[2] Warning: it will probably set off your add blocker: https://adwords.googleblog.com/2018/05/google-bans-ads-for-b...
[3] by "this", I mean a case where there's a bad system, and a for profit group that's offering a local improvement but seems slimy nonetheless