# POL-072 — Consent must not be described as transferable or assignable

> The policy and the SMS terms must not describe messaging consent as transferable or assignable between businesses.

- **Rule ID:** POL-072
- **Layer:** Policy pages (`POLICY_PAGE`)
- **Checks:** `privacy policy and SMS terms body`
- **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:** Fix the privacy policy or SMS terms
- **Required by:** CTIA, Twilio
- **Applies:** Applies to every 10DLC registration.
- **Canonical URL:** https://ekas.io/rules/10dlc/policy-page/pol-072/

## Why this rule exists

CTIA states plainly that an opt-in should not be transferable or assignable, because the consumer agreed to hear from one named business and cannot be taken to have agreed to hear from its successors or affiliates. The wording usually arrives inside a boilerplate assignment clause covering the whole agreement, drafted with contracts in mind rather than consent.

## How to fix it

Exclude consent from the assignment clause explicitly, and state in the SMS terms that the opt-in applies to this brand alone. Done when no clause lets the consent travel with a sale of the business.

## Example of a compliant value

```text
We may assign this agreement, but your text messaging consent applies only to Acme Coffee and is not transferred or assigned with it.
```

## Provider rejection codes

| Provider | Code | Resubmission allowed |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Twilio (gen2) | `30932` | yes |

## Notes

The positive form of the same requirement is POL-191, which asks the SMS terms to state that the opt-in is programme-specific. This one fails a document that says the opposite; that one fails a document that says nothing.