Nothing in the flow may contradict the no-sharing promise
The requirementstatement
No part of the opt-in surface or its linked policy may indicate that opt-in data is shared with third parties.
- 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
- opt-in surface + linked privacy policy
- Where it liveslayer
- Consent flowCONSENT_FLOW
- How Ekas settles itdetectability
- AI · crawlCRAWL
- Needs your live site or policy page fetched and read. Ekas crawls it the way a reviewer would.
- What the fix involvesfailureClass
- Fix the policyTERMINAL_POLICY
- The fix lives in your privacy policy or SMS terms. Ekas can generate the missing clauses.
- Who requires itauthorities
- AWSTwilioGoHighLevel
- When it appliesapplicabilityText
- Applies to every 10DLC registration.
Why this rule existsrationale
A policy routinely carries the required no-sharing sentence in its SMS section while a general data-sharing clause elsewhere says the opposite, and reviewers read the whole document and treat the permissive clause as controlling. A checker that only looks for the good sentence therefore passes a policy that will be rejected — which is worse than not checking, because the brand submits believing it is covered.
How to fix itremediation
Find the permissive clause and carve mobile data out of it explicitly, rather than adding a second sentence that contradicts it. Done when the sharing section itself says mobile information is excluded — a reviewer reading only that section reaches the right answer.
A compliant exampleexample
We may share aggregated, non-identifying data with partners. This sharing expressly excludes mobile phone numbers and SMS opt-in data, which are never shared with third parties for marketing purposes.
Common mistakespitfalls
- A cookie or advertising-partner section is where this usually hides — the SMS section is clean and the marketing section three headings earlier is not.
Only meaningful once these passdependsOn
- CON-095The no-sharing statement must be reachable from the consent point
Notesnotes
The inverse trap, on the consent surface rather than the policy page. Depends on CON-095: until the no-sharing statement is located, there is nothing for a contradiction to contradict. POL-064 states the same trap for the policy document read on its own.
Rules you will hit next
Other consent flow rules at the same severity. A registration is judged as a whole, not rule by rule.
CON-095The no-sharing statement must be reachable from the consent pointBlockingBLOCKINGCON-008The live CTA and the declared message flow must say the same thingBlockingBLOCKINGCON-010The three subscriber-management attributes must be declared trueBlockingBLOCKINGCON-013Subscriber attributes must agree with the message bodies suppliedBlockingBLOCKINGCON-023Evidence URLs must resolve without a loginBlockingBLOCKINGCON-024The opt-in URL must serve a certificate that verifiesBlockingBLOCKING
CON-096 is one of 101 consent flow rules in the 915-rule 10DLC registry. Free to cite under CC BY 4.0.