{
  "id": "CMP-112",
  "slug": "cmp-112",
  "title": "A promotional programme cannot rest on spoken consent alone",
  "statement": "A campaign whose content requires express written consent must not declare a spoken opt-in as its only collection method.",
  "rationale": "Written consent exists so that what the consumer agreed to can be produced years later when a complaint arrives, and a phone call produces no such record — an agent's note that the customer said yes cannot show what they were told they were saying yes to. Businesses reach this honestly: the call centre already asks for consent for service messages, and adding the marketing programme to the same script looks like a small extension rather than a change of consent grade.",
  "layer": "CAMPAIGN",
  "layerSlug": "campaign",
  "object": "campaign.usecase + declared consent methods",
  "severity": "BLOCKING",
  "detectability": [
    "DETERMINISTIC"
  ],
  "failureClass": "TERMINAL_ARTIFACT",
  "artifact": "paper_consent_form",
  "authorities": [
    "FCC",
    "Twilio",
    "Infobip",
    "Bandwidth"
  ],
  "codes": [
    {
      "provider": "Twilio",
      "code": "30913",
      "remediable": true
    },
    {
      "provider": "Bandwidth",
      "code": "2101",
      "remediable": true
    }
  ],
  "applicability": {
    "consentMethods": [
      "verbal_live",
      "verbal_ivr"
    ]
  },
  "applicabilityText": "Applies when consent was collected by live verbal and IVR.",
  "universal": false,
  "remediation": "Collect the promotional consent in writing — a signed form at the counter, or a web opt-in the customer completes themselves — and keep the spoken path for the service messages it is valid for. Done when every number receiving promotional content has a written record behind it.",
  "pitfalls": [
    "Numbers already collected verbally cannot be moved onto the written programme by re-characterising the consent; they have to be asked again.",
    "Reading the written disclosure aloud does not make the consent written. What matters is the record the consumer produced, not the words the agent said."
  ],
  "notes": "The use-case condition lives in the check rather than in an applicability tag, because it is read off USE_CASE_REQUIREMENTS.consentGrade — a table row rather than a fixed list, so a use case added later is covered without editing this rule. The tag narrows to the spoken methods, which is what makes the rule inapplicable to a web or checkout opt-in instead of passing trivially on one. The legal layer records the Fifth Circuit *Bradley v. DentalPlans.com* carve-out; carriers do not honour it, so the registry does not either.",
  "phase": "approval",
  "automated": true,
  "url": "https://ekas.io/rules/10dlc/campaign/cmp-112/",
  "markdown": "https://ekas.io/rules/10dlc/campaign/cmp-112.md",
  "registry": "https://ekas.io/rules/10dlc/",
  "updated": "2026-07-25",
  "licence": "CC BY 4.0 — https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"
}