The terms must not say consumer data is shared
The requirementstatement
The SMS terms must not indicate that consumer data or opt-in information is shared with third parties.
- 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
- SMS terms and ToS body
- 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
- TwilioBandwidth
- When it appliesapplicabilityText
- Applies to every 10DLC registration.
Why this rule existsrationale
Twilio treats a sharing statement in either the policy or the terms as making the whole business noncompliant, so a careful privacy policy does not protect a terms page that says the opposite. The terms are usually drafted by whoever handles commercial contracts, who has no reason to know the messaging clause exists.
How to fix itremediation
Remove any sharing language from the terms and mirror the privacy policy's non-sharing clause there instead. Done when both documents say the same thing about who gets the number.
A compliant exampleexample
We do not share your mobile number or your consent with anyone except the service providers who deliver our messages.
Provider rejection codescodes
The code you get back when this rule is what failed, and whether that provider lets you resubmit.
| Provider | Code | Resubmit |
|---|---|---|
| Twiliogen2 | 30932 | Yes |
Notesnotes
The same defect in the privacy policy is POL-062 and POL-063; POL-070 is the cross-document contradiction. This rule fails the terms on their own terms, whether or not the policy agrees.
Rules you will hit next
One other rule reads SMS terms and ToS body. 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-195No affiliate-marketing or lead-generation language in the termsBlockingBLOCKINGPOL-001A privacy policy URL is required on the campaignBlockingBLOCKINGPOL-002A terms and conditions URL is required on the campaignBlockingBLOCKINGPOL-003An uploaded policy document must fit the provider file constraintsBlockingBLOCKINGPOL-005The terms and conditions attestation must be setBlockingBLOCKINGPOL-010Both policy URLs must resolve and return content anonymouslyBlockingBLOCKING
POL-194 is one of 157 policy pages rules in the 915-rule 10DLC registry. Free to cite under CC BY 4.0.