# POL-069 — The general policy and the SMS clause must not contradict each other

> Where the policy contains both a general sharing disclosure and an SMS-specific non-sharing clause, the two must be reconciled rather than left to contradict.

- **Rule ID:** POL-069
- **Layer:** Policy pages (`POLICY_PAGE`)
- **Checks:** `privacy policy body (intra-document consistency)`
- **Severity:** HIGH — Rejected by at least one carrier or provider, and a common cause of failure at the rest.
- **When it bites:** Gates approval — get this wrong and registration is refused
- **How it is detected:** AI judgement over the submitted form
- **Fix type:** Fix the privacy policy or SMS terms
- **Required by:** Telnyx
- **Applies:** Applies to every 10DLC registration.
- **Canonical URL:** https://ekas.io/rules/10dlc/policy-page/pol-069/

## Why this rule exists

A document that promises two opposite things has told the reviewer nothing except that nobody read it end to end, and the reviewer resolves it against the brand by taking the permissive clause as controlling. It is the standard outcome of adding a compliance paragraph to an existing policy: the new text is correct, the old text is untouched, and both are live.

## How to fix it

Edit the general section so it agrees with the SMS clause — narrow it, or exclude messaging data from it by name — rather than adding a third paragraph explaining the relationship. Done when a reader can find only one answer to "is my number shared?".

## Example of a compliant value

```text
General section: "We share personal information with service providers acting on our behalf, and with no one else. Text messaging opt-in data and consent are excluded from all sharing and disclosure."
```

## Notes

The contradiction itself is the finding, which is why this is separate from POL-062 and POL-064: those fail the permissive clause on its own terms, and this one fails the document for holding both. Where only the permissive clause exists, report it there and pass here.