# CON-017 — An offline opt-in still needs a findable business behind it

> A brand collecting consent entirely offline must still have a verifiable online presence a reviewer can find.

- **Rule ID:** CON-017
- **Layer:** Consent flow (`CONSENT_FLOW`)
- **Checks:** `brand website vs offline consent method`
- **Severity:** HIGH — Rejected by at least one carrier or provider, and a common cause of failure at the rest.
- **When it bites:** Gates approval — get this wrong and registration is refused
- **How it is detected:** AI judgement over the crawled website or policy page
- **Fix type:** Fix the website — no form edit clears it
- **Required by:** TCR, Twilio, Bandwidth
- **Applies:** Applies when consent was collected by paper form, point of sale, live verbal, IVR and employer / HR.
- **Canonical URL:** https://ekas.io/rules/10dlc/consent-flow/con-017/

## Why this rule exists

With no opt-in URL to inspect, the website is the only independent evidence that the business exists and does what the campaign says. A brand that is invisible online and collecting numbers on paper is indistinguishable, from a reviewer's side, from one that does not exist — which is why offline programmes are held to a higher bar on the brand record rather than a lower one.

## How to fix it

Supply a website that names the business, describes what it does, and carries the SMS terms and privacy policy. Where the business genuinely has no site, a complete and consistent listing — a verified profile with the same name, address and phone as the brand record — is what a reviewer will look for instead. Done when the campaign can be corroborated without the opt-in surface.

## Common mistakes

- A social profile alone rarely satisfies this, because the policy pages have nowhere to live on it.