# POL-231 — The ages in the terms and the privacy policy must not conflict

> The minimum age in the terms' eligibility clause must not conflict with the age threshold in the privacy policy's children's section.

- **Rule ID:** POL-231
- **Layer:** Policy pages (`POLICY_PAGE`)
- **Checks:** `ToS eligibility age vs privacy policy minors section`
- **Severity:** MEDIUM — Usually survives review, but lowers your trust score or invites manual review.
- **When it bites:** Gates approval — get this wrong and registration is refused
- **How it is detected:** Deterministic (settled in code from the submitted values)
- **Fix type:** Fix the privacy policy or SMS terms
- **Required by:** TCR
- **Applies:** Applies to every 10DLC registration.
- **Canonical URL:** https://ekas.io/rules/10dlc/policy-page/pol-231/

## Why this rule exists

Terms admitting thirteen-year-olds next to a policy promising to collect nothing from anyone under eighteen is a document pair that cannot both be true, and a reviewer reading them together sees a business that has not read its own paperwork. The two are almost always written by different people from different templates, which is why the numbers diverge without anybody deciding anything.

## How to fix it

Pick one age for the business and use it in the terms, the privacy policy and the SMS terms. Done when the same number appears in all three.

## Example of a compliant value

```text
Terms: "You must be at least 18." Privacy policy: "We do not knowingly collect information from anyone under 18."
```

## Notes

The check compares only explicit numbers it can find in both documents. Where either is silent it reports PASS rather than inventing a conflict — the absence of the age itself is POL-202 and POL-113.