# CON-146 — A TCPA exemption is not a substitute for opt-in

> An organisational or governmental exemption from the TCPA does not remove the requirement to obtain an opt-in.

- **Rule ID:** CON-146
- **Layer:** Consent flow (`CONSENT_FLOW`)
- **Checks:** `consent basis 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:** Supply evidence only you hold
- **Required by:** Bandwidth, AWS
- **Applies:** Applies to every 10DLC registration.
- **Canonical URL:** https://ekas.io/rules/10dlc/consent-flow/con-146/

## Why this rule exists

Being exempt from a federal statute says nothing about the carriers' own code of conduct, and it is the carriers who decide whether traffic is delivered. Non-profits and public bodies reach this conclusion honestly — their lawyer is right that the TCPA does not reach them — and are then surprised by a rejection that is not about the law at all.

## How to fix it

Describe and evidence a real opt-in as well as the exemption. The exemption is worth keeping in the submission — it explains your legal position — but it must sit alongside a collection surface, not in place of one. Done when the flow names an act of consent, whatever else it also says.

## Example of a compliant value

```text
Riverside Shelter is a 501(c)(3) and relies on the non-profit exemption for TCPA purposes. Supporters additionally opt in at riversideshelter.org/alerts by ticking an unchecked box; screenshot attached.
```

## Common mistakes

- Bandwidth is stricter here than the statute, and says so — arguing the law in a resubmission does not change the outcome.

## Provider rejection codes

| Provider | Code | Resubmission allowed |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Bandwidth | `1415` | yes |

## Notes

Flagged in the research as stricter than the law: the exemption is genuine and the carrier requirement is separate. Say that plainly to a user who pushes back, rather than implying their legal analysis is wrong.