A service for recording consent and opt-outs in property sales advertising

Records have become more important than sending

For illegal spam violations occurring after October 1, 2026, Korea can impose an administrative fine of up to 6% of the related revenue. When related revenue is difficult to calculate or there is no revenue, the ceiling is KRW 2 billion. This changes the scale of exposure for teams that had only considered the previous administrative penalty of up to KRW 30 million.

Messages, calls, emails, and app notifications about sales schedules, model-home events, remaining units, and offers are likely to be treated as advertising information. Teams need to distinguish between answering a prospect's request for a sale price or subscription procedure and repeatedly recommending unsolicited offers or other sites.

Sending advertising generally requires explicit prior consent. Consent to collect contact details for a consultation is separate from consent to receive advertising. Teams must also confirm the scope for each delivery channel, such as text messages, calls, and email.

When a customer requests an opt-out or withdraws consent, advertising must stop immediately, and the handling result must be communicated within 14 days. Consent status must be reconfirmed every two years based on the initial consent date. Advertising sent between 9 p.m. and 8 a.m. the next day requires separate consent, except for email.

As a business opportunity, the period from October 1, 2026—when sales sites move away from workflows centered on spreadsheets and personal phones to meet the new rules—is an initial sales window.

A day in the life of a marketing manager at a 12-person sales agency

Consider a marketing manager at a property sales agency with 12 employees handling three sites. Each month, this person gathers lists of model-home visitors, online inquiries, and phone consultations, sends text messages on behalf of project developers, and reports the delivery results.

Visitors sign paper consent forms. Online inquirers select items on an application screen. Phone consultants write down the details. The manager moves this information into spreadsheets by site, but the consent wording used at the time, the channels checked, and the consent timestamp can be left out.

Before sending texts, the manager uploads the customer list again to the sending provider's screen. They must find and remove people who opted out after a previous event, agreed only to another site, or have no documented consent basis. The larger the list becomes, the harder it is to check visually.

Opt-outs are even more fragmented. Requests arriving through a free opt-out number sit with the sending provider. Requests made by phone to a consultant remain in messenger conversations. Requests submitted through the developer's complaint desk remain in email. Missing one source can put that person back on the next sending list.

With a new record service, one customer screen would show the site name, the company that obtained consent, the advertising channel, the consent wording, the consent time, and supporting files together. Searching for a customer's number would immediately show which site's advertising can be sent by text or phone and the evidence to verify it.

Just before sending, the team uploads a list and first filters customers with no documented consent basis or an opt-out history. When an opt-out arrives, the customer is immediately excluded from scheduled sends for every site. The same screen records the deadline for notifying the customer of the handling result and the actual notification record.

Human judgment still remains. Whether a message is requested guidance or new advertising, whether consent for one site can be used for another, and whether the developer or agency is the sender must be decided from the contract and actual work. Rather than replacing legal judgment, a service should first take on the more practical role of collecting the records needed for that judgment without gaps.

Abroad, there are separate examples of consent and opt-out record management and advertising sending tools

Free-text opt-out processing at US-based Divvy Homes

Divvy Homes, a US company that helps customers rent a home before buying it, used Y Meadows to identify customers who expressed an opt-out intent through phrases meaning stop texting, typos, or emoji rather than the prescribed word STOP, then change their status to opted out. The service charges a monthly subscription based on processing volume and workflow rules, but its public price is not available.

The claim that routine work fell by 14% after it was introduced alongside recurring-inquiry handling is a supplier statement. For Korean property sales sites, an approach that suggests phrases a consultant would understand as an opt-out may be more useful than one that searches only for a prescribed word.

Channel integration at France's CDC Habitat

CDC Habitat, which manages about 560,000 social housing units in France, consolidated consent and withdrawal records received through its website, consultation phone line, and partner desks in Fair&Smart. Each consent or opt-out generated a time-stamped certificate, and the system connected to the existing customer-management screen. Pricing is quoted separately based on management scale.

The result that it connected three channels within four months of contracting and was used by the whole operations team comes from a supplier case study. Rather than replacing every sending tool, it first brought records from scattered touchpoints together—a point that also fits a small Korean service.

Property-sales text-message operations at Australia's Three Sixty

Three Sixty Property Group, an Australian residential-development sales agency, started with low email response and incomplete management of customer phone numbers. It connected Sinch Engage to its existing customer-management screen to run personal texts, bulk texts, message templates, and scheduled sends.

Australian public pricing starts at AUD 45 per month including 570 text messages, but this company's contract amount is not public. The supplier said inquiries and sales activity increased, but did not disclose opt-out processing volume. It is therefore more useful to study the structure that connects records and execution inside the existing work screen than to focus on sending performance.

Four small products that could be built and sold

1. Site-by-site consent evidence vault

• What it does: Groups photos of paper consent forms, online consent records, and the wording used at the time by customer, site, company, and advertising channel, and alerts teams to the two-year confirmation date.
• Who uses it: Property sales agencies with around 10 employees that handle two or three sites at once and manage interested customers in spreadsheets.
• Why now: From October 2026, the cost of violations increased. It is no longer enough to say that consent exists; teams need to show what wording was used and when consent was obtained.
• First screen: Shows counts of customers with no evidence, customers nearing the two-year confirmation point, and customers whose site scope is unclear.

2. Pre-send list checker

• What it does: When a text-message list is uploaded, it separately removes numbers with no documented consent basis, an opt-out history, or consent only for another site.
• Who uses it: A marketing manager at a property sales agency uploading a list of thousands to a sending provider's screen the day before an event.
• Why now: Many tools already help teams send effectively, but checking which customers must not receive a message—including the scope of each site—still depends on people.
• First screen: Shows customer counts and exclusion reasons under sendable, needs review, and excluded.

3. Opt-out inbox and notification helper

• What it does: Brings opt-out requests from phone notes, text replies, and email into one place, blocks sends immediately, and helps teams notify customers of the handling result within 14 days.
• Who uses it: A site operator who must manage a free opt-out number, consultants' personal phones, and a developer's complaint desk together.
• Why now: Resending after an opt-out and failing to notify the customer of the handling result each create enforcement risk, increasing the need to connect intake, blocking, and notification records.
• First screen: Lists new opt-out requests today, requests not yet blocked, and requests nearing their notification deadline in time order.

4. Site audit report for developers

• What it does: Takes consent, sending, and opt-out records held by agencies and turns missing items and actions taken for each site into a one-page report.
• Who uses it: The marketing lead at a small or mid-sized developer that has assigned customer recruitment and text-message sending to several property sales agencies.
• Why now: Even when an outside agency sends messages, role allocation and management records between the developer and agency have become important. A results report alone is no longer enough.
• First screen: Shows, side by side for each site, the consent-evidence rate, unprocessed opt-out requests, 14-day notification deadlines, and responsible company.

One person to talk to today

Call one marketing manager at a property sales agency and ask them to trace one recently sent text message backward from the customer number: from the consent basis through sending and opt-out reflection. Review only the process with personal information redacted. If they have to move between two or more files or screens to find the material, or cannot show both the consent wording and opt-out handling status within five minutes, a small pilot may be worth building.

Why this matters where you are

This opportunity is shaped by Korean conditions: revenue-linked spam penalties, rules on advertising consent and opt-outs, and property-sales teams that work across developers, agencies, and multiple sites. In your market, check whether consent requirements, opt-out handling deadlines, and responsibility between the party that sends messages and the party that hires them create the same record-keeping gap. Even where the rules differ, tracing one message from consent through opt-out can reveal whether scattered records are causing operational risk.