# CON-145 — Consent must come from the consumer, not from a legal process

> Permission to message obtained by court order, or by any other mechanism the consumer did not initiate, is not consent.

- **Rule ID:** CON-145
- **Layer:** Consent flow (`CONSENT_FLOW`)
- **Checks:** `consent provenance declaration`
- **Severity:** BLOCKING — Breaking this rule gets the submission rejected outright.
- **When it bites:** Gates approval — get this wrong and registration is refused
- **How it is detected:** AI judgement over the submitted form
- **Fix type:** Hard stop — not remediable, resubmission will not help
- **Required by:** AWS, Bandwidth
- **Applies:** Applies to every 10DLC registration.
- **Canonical URL:** https://ekas.io/rules/10dlc/consent-flow/con-145/

## Why this rule exists

Consent is a decision the consumer makes, so an order compelling contact is the opposite of one however lawful the order is. Bandwidth is unusually blunt about the consequence: if you can obtain opt-in another way, resubmit — and if you cannot, do not, because the opt-in will never be compliant. That sentence is worth surfacing before submission rather than after.

## How to fix it

Messaging on this basis cannot be registered. Where the same consumers can be asked directly — a form, a call, a signed document — collect that consent and describe it instead. Where they cannot, there is no route to registration and resubmitting will not produce one.

## Provider rejection codes

| Provider | Code | Resubmission allowed |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Bandwidth | `2126` | no |
| Bandwidth/DCA2 | `714` | no |

## Notes

Bandwidth marks 2126 conditionally remediable: remediable only if consent can be re-obtained lawfully by another method, and not remediable at all otherwise. Recorded as non-remediable because the rule fires on the court-order basis itself, which is the unfixable case.