# OPS-044 — Suppression is brand-wide, not per number

> An opted-out consumer must be suppressed across every sending number and every campaign belonging to the brand, not only the number that received the STOP.

- **Rule ID:** OPS-044
- **Layer:** Operational (`OPERATIONAL`)
- **Checks:** `suppression list scope across the brand`
- **Severity:** HIGH — Rejected by at least one carrier or provider, and a common cause of failure at the rest.
- **When it bites:** Falls due after approval, once you are live and sending
- **How it is detected:** Not knowable before submission — reported with its deadline
- **Fix type:** Wait on an external system or a required interval
- **Required by:** FCC, CTIA
- **Applies:** Applies to every 10DLC registration.
- **Canonical URL:** https://ekas.io/rules/10dlc/operational/ops-044/

## Why this rule exists

Consumers experience a brand, not a sending number. Suppressing only the number that received the STOP means the next campaign — or the next number in the pool — reaches them anyway, and from their point of view the brand ignored them and changed number to do it. That is also exactly what filter-evasion looks like from the carrier's side, so the accidental version is punished like the deliberate one.

## How to fix it

Scope the suppression list to the brand and check it before every send on every campaign and number. Done when a STOP received on one campaign prevents a send on a different one to the same number.

## Example of a compliant value

```text
Suppression keyed on (brand_id, msisdn) rather than on (campaign_id, sending_number, msisdn).
```

## Common mistakes

- A number pool makes this worse rather than better: the next send picks a different originator, so a per-number list looks like it is working right up until the consumer complains.

## Check this yourself

**Does a STOP received on one campaign prevent a send on a different campaign, or a different number, to the same person?**

1. Ask your platform how the suppression list is scoped. Per campaign is a common default.
2. Test across two campaigns on the brand, and across a number pool if you use one.
3. Compare two campaigns' recipient lists — nothing else makes this visible.

*What wrong looks like:* The next campaign, or the next number in the pool, reaches them anyway. From the consumer's side the brand ignored them and changed number to do it, which is also what filter evasion looks like from the carrier's side.

## Notes

A property of the platform's data model. What the user has to establish is how their platform scopes suppression, because per-campaign is a common default and nothing about it is visible until somebody compares two campaigns' recipient lists.