Vishing simulations are a powerful awareness tool — but without legal guardrails, they can put your organization at risk. Here’s how to approach them safely.
Why Legal Context Matters
Voice phishing — or vishing — is no longer a fringe tactic. Reported attacks surged 442% last year, making headlines as attackers trick IT help desks, employees, and executives into resetting credentials or installing remote access tools.
At the same time, generative AI and synthetic voice technologies have lowered the barrier to entry. A wave of startups now offers voice cloning and automated vishing simulations that promise realism at scale.
But here’s the catch: you can’t just adopt a vishing simulation platform without addressing the legal and compliance landscape. What works for phishing emails doesn’t map one-to-one to AI-driven phone calls.
This article highlights the key legal issues CISOs and security leaders must understand before running vishing simulations as part of awareness training.
1. Call Recording Regulations
Recording calls is one of the most sensitive aspects of vishing simulations. In many countries, it is heavily regulated, and in some cases outright prohibited without explicit consent.
Comparative Overview of Consent Requirements
| Jurisdiction | Consent Required for Call Recording | Key Notes |
|---|---|---|
| United States (federal) | One-party consent | But many states require more. |
| California, Florida, Pennsylvania, etc. | All-party consent | Call recording without explicit consent is illegal. |
| Canada (PIPEDA) | Notice + implied consent if call continues | Organizations must state purpose. |
| Germany | All-party consent | Recording without consent is a criminal offense. ] |
| United Kingdom | One-party consent for recording | Sharing/disclosure subject to strict rules (PIECR, GDPR) |
| South Africa (POPIA + RICA) | All-party consent | Recording without consent violates interception law. |
The Problems for Vishing Simulations
Problem 1: Consent ruins realism
Asking for consent in the middle of a vishing simulation undermines its educational value. It’s like warning someone you’re about to send a phishing email — the test loses meaning.
Problem 2: Voice recordings create future risks
Even if not classified as biometric data today, voice recordings can be used downstream to create voiceprints and clones. Regulators are increasingly aware of this, and future rules will likely impose stricter storage and usage limits.
Problem 3: Transcripts are not a safe shortcut
Some platforms avoid storing audio by relying on transcripts. But transcripts can still capture sensitive information (e.g., a password spelled out during a simulated call). Just as phishing simulations avoid collecting real passwords, vishing transcripts must not store sensitive data in plain text.
Arsen’s Approach
At Arsen, our vishing simulations are designed to:
- Avoid storing voice recordings or transcripts.
- Focus instead on detecting actions or keywords that indicate compromise, without retaining sensitive content.
- Deliver training insights while staying compliant with privacy and telecom laws.
2. AI Voice Phishing and Compliance
Using AI-generated voices to simulate a human attacker is a new and legally grey area. Regulators are moving fast to close the gap.
- In the United States, the FCC ruled in 2024 that AI-generated voices fall under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), meaning they cannot be used in automated calls without prior express consent.
- In the European Union, the Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations (PECR) already require consent for automated calls. The EU AI Act adds transparency and risk management requirements.
- In India, the Telecom Regulatory Authority (TRAI) requires registration of AI calling templates and can block campaigns after a single complaint.
The solution? Just like phishing simulations, consent must be obtained in advance. The best vehicle is the company’s IT charter or acceptable use policy, which can include a clause authorizing simulated AI calls.
3. Voice Cloning Legal Implications
Attackers don’t need deepfakes today to succeed — most vishing attacks simply trick IT help desks into resetting a password or installing malware. That said, voice cloning is coming, and forward-thinking CISOs should prepare.
Running simulations with cloned voices introduces new legal and ethical obligations:
- Storage & retention: Where are cloned voices stored? How are they secured? A leak of a working voice clone could have reputational and legal consequences.
- Consent: You must obtain express consent from the person whose voice is cloned.
- Right to withdraw: That individual must be able to request removal of their voice data at any time, and the process should be simple and documented.
4. Jurisdiction-Specific Laws
Beyond these general principles, state- and country-specific rules can dramatically alter what is allowed. For example:
- In the US, some states impose per-call fines under TCPA or biometric privacy laws like Illinois BIPA.
- In the EU, biometric and AI regulations overlap, making transparency and proportionality key.
Compliance Checklist for CISOs
Before launching AI vishing simulations, validate that your program covers:
- Consent: Captured in IT policy or employment contracts.
- Jurisdiction: Local recording and telecom rules mapped.
- AI disclosure: Policies reference automated/AI voice calls.
- Data handling: No sensitive recordings, transcripts, or voiceprints retained.
- Voice cloning: Explicit consent and withdrawal rights secured.
- Audit trail: Documented proof of compliance.
Final Thoughts
For CISOs, the question isn’t whether to run vishing simulations — it’s how to run them responsibly.
By securing consent up front, minimizing data risks, and aligning with global regulations, you can reap the benefits of realistic training without exposing your organization to compliance failures.
At Arsen, our mission is to help organizations simulate the threats they’ll actually face — while staying ahead of the legal curve.
