Some providers require vetting for every use case above the lowest tier

The requirementstatement

At least one provider requires standard or enhanced brand vetting for any use case beyond the lowest-volume mixed tier.

Severityseverity: BlockingBLOCKINGBreaking this rule gets the submission rejected. There is no partial credit.
When it bitesphase: Gates approvalapprovalGet this wrong and the brand or campaign is refused at registration.
What is checkedobject: the vet record + campaign.use_case
Where it liveslayer: BrandBRAND
How Ekas settles itdetectability: External recordEXTERNAL_DATA; The fact that settles it lives in a register we cannot query, such as the IRS file, a postal database, or another provider’s tenant. Reported as a warning with the evidence to check, not as a pass.
What the fix involvesfailureClass: Wait on someone elseTERMINAL_EXTERNAL; Needs an external system or a waiting period, such as IRS propagation, a vetting result, or a carrier queue.
Who requires itauthorities: Vonage
When it appliesapplicabilityText: Applies to every 10DLC registration.

Why this rule existsrationale

Where this applies, vetting stops being an upgrade and becomes a precondition for the use case itself — a marketing campaign simply cannot be registered without it. It is not visible in any field validation, so a team that budgeted for registration and not for vetting discovers the gap at the point the campaign is refused.

How to fix itremediation

Check whether your provider gates use cases on vetting before quoting a customer, and order the vet as part of onboarding rather than as a later upgrade. Done when a vet is held before the campaign is submitted on a provider that requires one.

Check this yourselfattestation

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

Have you checked whether your provider gates use cases on vetting, before quoting the customer?

1Read the provider's onboarding terms for a vetting precondition on anything above the lowest-volume mixed tier — it produces no field validation error.
2Where it applies, order the vet as part of onboarding rather than as a later upgrade.

What wrong looks like: A team budgets for registration and not for vetting, and finds the gap when the marketing campaign is refused — with the schedule, not the fee, as the thing that is lost.

Notesnotes

Conditional on the submission target and stated by Vonage explicitly. What the user has to establish is whether their own provider imposes it — the answer is in the onboarding terms rather than in an error code, and finding it out afterwards costs the campaign schedule rather than the fee.

Rules you will hit next

Other brand rules at the same severity. A registration is judged as a whole, not rule by rule.

BRD-001A legal company name is required for every entity but a sole proprietorBlockingBLOCKING BRD-002Legal name must match the IRS record for the EINBlockingBLOCKING BRD-003Legal name must carry its exact entity suffix as filedBlockingBLOCKING BRD-008Legal name must not carry an appended personal name or roleBlockingBLOCKING BRD-009The legal name field takes the legal name, not the trading nameBlockingBLOCKING BRD-011A legal business name may back only one brand across the whole registryBlockingBLOCKING

All brand rules

BRD-233 is one of 196 brand rules in the 915-rule 10DLC registry. Free to cite under CC BY 4.0.