An agency arrangement does not shield either party in Virginia

The requirementstatement

Virginia holds the telephone solicitor and the seller jointly liable, and an agency arrangement does not shield either from the other's failure.

Severityseverity: MediumMEDIUMUsually survives review, but lowers your trust score or invites a manual look you would rather avoid.
When it bitesphase: Gates approvalapprovalGet this wrong and the brand or campaign is refused at registration.
What is checkedobject: the brand's role classification
Where it liveslayer: BrandBRAND
How Ekas settles itdetectability: Human checkHUMAN; Only someone holding the document or making the call can settle it. Ekas tells you exactly what to look at.
What the fix involvesfailureClass: Supply evidenceTERMINAL_EVIDENCE; Needs proof only you hold: a screenshot, a recording, a scan of the form people signed.
Who requires itauthorities: Virginia SB 1339
When it appliesapplicabilityText: Applies to every 10DLC registration.

Why this rule existsrationale

Joint liability means both parties answer for the same violation, so the usual contractual comfort — the vendor indemnifies the brand, or the brand disclaims the vendor — allocates cost between them without reducing either one's exposure to the regulator. Businesses discover this after a complaint, when both names are on it.

How to fix itremediation

Where messages reach Virginia numbers, treat compliance as a shared duty rather than a delegated one: both parties keep consent records, and both can evidence how revocations are processed. Done when either party could answer a complaint without the other.

Check this yourselfattestation

No tool can settle this one for you. Here is the check, and what wrong looks like.

Does your list reach Virginia numbers — and if so, could each party answer a complaint from its own records, without the other?

1Check the list for Virginia area codes and recipient states.
2Where it reaches them, confirm both the seller and the solicitor hold consent records and can evidence how revocations are processed.
3Read your vendor contract for what it actually does: an indemnity allocates cost between the parties, it is not a defence to the regulator.

What wrong looks like: Both names are on the complaint. The contractual comfort each party relied on turns out to have reduced neither party's exposure.

Notesnotes

A state-law exposure rather than a registration check, and nothing in a submission reveals where the recipients are. What the user has to do is establish whether their list reaches Virginia numbers and, if it does, make sure their own records would stand up on their own — an indemnity from a vendor is not a defence to the regulator.

Rules you will hit next

One other rule reads the brand's role classification. Fixing one field to satisfy a single rule is how a resubmission trades one rejection for another, so read these before you change anything.

BRD-169Decide whether this brand is the seller or the telemarketerMediumMEDIUM BRD-037Low-Volume Standard is not available to a non-US brand that needs vettingMediumMEDIUM BRD-051Russell 3000 membership sets the starting carrier classMediumMEDIUM BRD-059A unified fundraising short code needs five years of operating historyMediumMEDIUM BRD-090A sole-proprietor brand cannot move between providersMediumMEDIUM BRD-106The business phone should be findable in a web searchMediumMEDIUM

All brand rules

BRD-170 is one of 196 brand rules in the 915-rule 10DLC registry. Free to cite under CC BY 4.0.