Fabricated business details are a permanent disqualification

The requirementstatement

The brand record must describe a real business; fabricated details or a known scam pattern must never be submitted.

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 whole brand record
Where it liveslayer
BrandBRAND
How Ekas settles itdetectability
AI · formAI_FORMExternal recordEXTERNAL_DATA
A semantic question about what you wrote: whether a description matches a use case, whether a name looks like a filed entity. Judged by a model against written criteria. 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
Hard stopHARD_STOP
Not remediable. Resubmitting will not help, and anyone offering to fix it is selling you a rejection.
Who requires itauthorities
Twilio
When it appliesapplicabilityText
Applies to every 10DLC registration.

Why this rule existsrationale

This is the one brand finding with no remediation: a registration judged fabricated is not corrected, it is refused, and the account behind it is reviewed. The reason is that a fake brand is the entire mechanism of an SMS scam — the identity is what a consumer would use to check who texted them, so inventing it defeats the framework rather than bending it. It matters here because well-meaning placeholder data on a demo brand is indistinguishable from the real thing.

How to fix itremediation

Do not submit this registration. Every field must describe a business that exists, at an address it occupies, with a website it controls. If you are testing, use a mock brand (BRD-204), which burns no fee and pollutes no duplicate-detection index.

Provider rejection codescodes

The code you get back when this rule is what failed, and whether that provider lets you resubmit.

ProviderCodeResubmit
Twilio30959No
Twilio30885No

Check this yourselfattestation

Ekas flags this from what you submit, but the fact that settles it sits somewhere only you can reach.

Does every field on this brand describe a business that actually exists, at an address it actually occupies, with a website it actually controls?

  1. 1Go through the record field by field and name the source of each value: the IRS letter, the lease, the DNS registrar.
  2. 2Any value that came from a template, a placeholder, or 'we will fix it later' must be replaced before submission, not after.
  3. 3Testing rather than registering? Use a mock brand — it burns no fee and pollutes no duplicate index.

What wrong looks like: A demo brand with plausible filler details submitted for real. It is indistinguishable from a fraudulent registration, and the outcome is refusal without resubmission plus a review of the account behind it.

Notesnotes

Absorbs WEB-144, which is the same prohibition detected from the other side — site details that do not match public records. Twilio treats it as ineligible for resubmission, which is why this is HARD_STOP rather than a retry. The user cannot fix a fabricated record by editing it; what they have to do is register the real business, and if they believe the finding is wrong, appeal with documentation rather than resubmitting.

Rules you will hit next

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

All brand rules

BRD-286 is one of 196 brand rules in the 915-rule 10DLC registry. Free to cite under CC BY 4.0.

Reading the rules is the easy part.

Ekas runs every rule that gates approval, 823 of these 915, against your registration before it reaches the carrier. It reads your site, your policy pages and your opt-in the way a reviewer would, and hands you the fix, not just the verdict.