T-Mobile introduce fines from Jan 1 for "Code of Conduct" violations

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

T‑Mobile is introducing new monetary penalties for businesses that send mass SMS campaigns over its network, targeting spam, phishing, and content it deems illegal or inappropriate under a “Code of Conduct.” Commenters note that the rules apply to aggregators and A2P (application‑to‑person) messaging rather than ordinary customers, but raise concerns about vague categories like “inappropriate content,” bans on anything illegal in any U.S. state (with examples like CBD sales or abortion-related messages), and the legality of treating contractual penalties as “fines.” Others argue that similar enforcement mechanisms are common in B2B contracts and see this as a necessary step to reduce SMS abuse, provided it relies on complaints and pattern analysis rather than blanket content scanning.

Scope and Intent of the Policy

  • Applies to A2P / 10DLC mass messaging via gateways (e.g., Bandwidth, Twilio), not ordinary consumer SMS.
  • Based on an existing T‑Mobile “Code of Conduct” (since 2020); new part is adding monetary penalties (“fines”) for violations.
  • Goal framed as reducing SMS spam, phishing, and abusive commercial campaigns.

Prohibited Content and SHAFT Rules

  • Disallows unlawful/illicit content, including phishing, fraud, violence, “inappropriate content,” profanity/hate speech, gambling, payday loans, “work from home” schemes, and SHAFT categories (sexually explicit, hate/profanity, alcohol, firearms/violence, tobacco/illegal drugs).
  • Some feel “inappropriate content” and “hate speech” are vague and potentially overbroad.
  • Policy also bans campaigns involving content not legal in all 50 states and federally (e.g., cannabis, CBD, possibly abortion-related messaging), which many see as effectively dictated by the most restrictive state.

Fines, Contracts, and Legality

  • Tiered penalties: ~$2,000 for phishing/social engineering, $1,000 for “illegal” content, $500 for other violations (e.g., SHAFT).
  • Debate over whether private “fines” are enforceable:
    • One side: these are standard B2B contract liquidated damages; courts will enforce.
    • Other side: may be unenforceable penalties with no clear damages.
  • Concern that this turns wrongdoing into a pay-to-play cost rather than cause for termination or law-enforcement referral.

Enforcement and Privacy

  • Unclear if messages will be scanned; several commenters say industry expectation is complaint-driven review, not bulk content analysis.
  • Some are uneasy with carriers policing content at all and see it as a net neutrality / censorship slope.

Impact on Businesses and Use Cases

  • Messaging providers worry about short notice, high penalties, and broad “illegal in any state” language.
  • Specific concerns around legal-but-controversial areas (CBD, cannabis, abortion, health topics) and the impossibility of tracking all state laws.
  • Some say these contractual penalties are normal in payments/telecom; others argue they’re excessive and will push traffic to encrypted apps (Signal/WhatsApp) or away from T‑Mobile entirely.

Clarifications and Pushback

  • Multiple comments stress this is not about fining individual users for swearing or memes.
  • One linked blog post claims the “T‑Mobile fines for texting SHAFT” story has been debunked, but details in the thread are minimal.