A promotional programme cannot rest on spoken consent alone
The requirementstatement
A campaign whose content requires express written consent must not declare a spoken opt-in as its only collection method.
- 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
- campaign.usecase + declared consent methods
- Where it liveslayer
- CampaignCAMPAIGN
- How Ekas settles itdetectability
- DeterministicDETERMINISTIC
- Settled in code from the values you submitted. No model involved, no judgement call, same answer every time.
- What the fix involvesfailureClass
- Produce a documentTERMINAL_ARTIFACT
- Needs a document that does not exist yet, such as a verbal script, a paper consent form, or QR landing copy. Ekas drafts it.
- Who requires itauthorities
- FCCTwilioInfobipBandwidth
- When it appliesapplicabilityText
- Applies when consent was collected by live verbal and IVR.
Why this rule existsrationale
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.
How to fix itremediation
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.
Common mistakespitfalls
- 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.
Provider rejection codescodes
The code you get back when this rule is what failed, and whether that provider lets you resubmit.
| Provider | Code | Resubmit |
|---|---|---|
| Twilio | 30913 | Yes |
| Bandwidth | 2101 | Yes |
Notesnotes
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.
Rules you will hit next
Other campaign rules at the same severity. A registration is judged as a whole, not rule by rule.
CMP-003Message flow must not begin or end with whitespaceBlockingBLOCKINGCMP-017Every mandatory campaign attribute must be explicitly setBlockingBLOCKINGCMP-024Registration fields must be written in EnglishBlockingBLOCKINGCMP-028Opt-in evidence must be a JPG, PNG or PDF under 500 KBBlockingBLOCKINGCMP-035The description must describe this programme, not messaging in generalBlockingBLOCKINGCMP-037The description must name the business that sends the messagesBlockingBLOCKING
CMP-112 is one of 94 campaign rules in the 915-rule 10DLC registry. Free to cite under CC BY 4.0.