A general permission to share data with other companies fails even where SMS is never named

The requirementstatement

A policy permitting personal data to be shared with other companies is rejected whether or not it mentions SMS.

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: privacy policy body (whole document)
Where it liveslayer: Policy pagesPOLICY_PAGE
How Ekas settles itdetectability: AI · formAI_FORM; A semantic question about what you wrote: whether a description matches a use case, whether a name looks like a filed entity. Judged by a model against written criteria.
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: Bandwidth
When it appliesapplicabilityText: Applies to every 10DLC registration.

Why this rule existsrationale

Naming SMS is what makes a non-sharing clause count in the brand's favour, but not naming it does not let a general sharing clause escape — the phone number is personal data, so a permission covering personal data covers it. Businesses reason the opposite way round, adding a careful SMS paragraph while leaving the general sharing section untouched because it says nothing about texting.

How to fix itremediation

Narrow the general sharing section to named categories of service providers acting for you, or exclude messaging data from it in the section itself. Done when no clause in the document permits personal data to reach another company for that company's own use.

A compliant exampleexample

We share personal information only with service providers acting on our behalf. We do not share personal information with other companies for their own purposes, and text messaging opt-in data and consent are excluded from all sharing.

Provider rejection codescodes

The code you get back when this rule is what failed, and whether that provider lets you resubmit.

Provider	Code	Resubmit
Bandwidth	7103	Yes

Notesnotes

Fenced against its neighbours: POL-064 is about clauses permitting sharing FOR MARKETING, this one about a general permission with no purpose stated; POL-069 is the contradiction between such a clause and the SMS one, and POL-070 the same contradiction across two documents.

Rules you will hit next

2 other rules read privacy policy body (whole document). Fixing one field to satisfy a single rule is how a resubmission trades one rejection for another, so read these before you change anything.

POL-060No exception may permit sharing SMS opt-in dataBlockingBLOCKING POL-064No clause anywhere in the policy may permit sharing data for third-party marketingBlockingBLOCKING POL-001A privacy policy URL is required on the campaignBlockingBLOCKING POL-002A terms and conditions URL is required on the campaignBlockingBLOCKING POL-003An uploaded policy document must fit the provider file constraintsBlockingBLOCKING POL-005The terms and conditions attestation must be setBlockingBLOCKING

All policy pages rules

POL-062 is one of 157 policy pages rules in the 915-rule 10DLC registry. Free to cite under CC BY 4.0.