# BRD-285 — The brand must not be on the provider's own blocklist

> The brand must not appear on the submitting provider's internal blocklist.

- **Rule ID:** BRD-285
- **Layer:** Brand (`BRAND`)
- **Checks:** `the brand identity against the provider blocklist`
- **Severity:** BLOCKING — Breaking this rule gets the submission rejected outright.
- **When it bites:** Gates approval — get this wrong and registration is refused
- **How it is detected:** External record we cannot query — reported as a warning to verify
- **Fix type:** Wait on an external system or a required interval
- **Required by:** Sinch
- **Applies:** Applies to every 10DLC registration.
- **Canonical URL:** https://ekas.io/rules/10dlc/brand/brd-285/

## Why this rule exists

Providers keep their own lists of businesses they will not carry, built from their own enforcement history rather than from any published standard — so a brand can satisfy every carrier requirement and still be refused by one provider and accepted by another. The rejection cites the list rather than a reason, which makes it look arbitrary from the outside even when it is not.

## How to fix it

Where a provider refuses a brand on its own blocklist, ask them what triggered it before resubmitting anywhere — a prior enforcement action against a related entity is the usual cause, and it will follow the same details to the next provider. Registering the same business under a different name is a fabricated registration (BRD-286), not a workaround.

## Provider rejection codes

| Provider | Code | Resubmission allowed |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Sinch | `CR2003` | no |

## Check this yourself

**If a provider has refused this brand on its own blocklist, have you asked them what triggered it before submitting anywhere else?**

1. Ask the provider directly. They will usually say whether the trigger is the business, the EIN, or a person named on the record.
2. That answer decides whether another provider is worth trying at all — a prior enforcement action against a related entity follows the same details.
3. Re-registering the same business under a different name is a fabricated registration, not a workaround.

*What wrong looks like:* The rejection cites the list rather than a reason, so it looks arbitrary. The same details are submitted to a second provider and refused for the same invisible history.

## Notes

The list is internal to the provider and is not published. What the user has to do is ask: providers will usually say whether the trigger is the business, the EIN, or a person named on the record, and that answer decides whether another provider is worth trying at all.