Security & Trust
We don't require PMS or CRS integration, which means you don't trigger a brand IT review to use DeepBench. Here's how everything else works.
DeepBench supports multi-state US consent law out of the box. Every property gets a tested disclosure script for the answering agent, an opt-in flag per phone line, and signed-URL-only audio access internally. For states with two-party consent (CA, FL, IL, MA, MD, MT, NH, NV, PA, WA), the disclosure is built into the TwiML your line ships with.
Transcripts and scoring rows live in a tenant-isolated Supabase Postgres database. Every table that holds customer data has Row Level Security turned on. Audio files live in a private storage bucket with short-lived (10-minute) signed URLs. Deletion-on-request is supported; we'll honor it in a reasonable timeframe and confirm completion in writing.
Guest names and phone numbers are redacted from all client-facing UI surfaces — we mask the middle digits of every caller number and never display guest names on dashboard reports. Agent/team-member data is shared only with the tenant that owns it.
We are pre-SOC 2 today. Type I scoping is underway; we'll publish the audit partner and timeline here when that contract is signed. Type II is on the roadmap — no committed date yet. GDPR data-subject requests are supported. If you need our current security questionnaire, email security@deepbench.io and we'll send it under NDA.
DeepBench does not require PMS, CRS, or property-level IT integration. Because no guest-facing infrastructure is touched, standard deployments typically fall outside the scope of a brand IT review — but we recommend confirming with your brand-ops contact at Marriott, Hilton, Hyatt, IHG, or Accor before rollout. At the Enterprise tier we also ship brand-standards compliance rubrics so your scoring aligns with your flag's QA program.
Every property gets a packet of front-desk disclosure scripts and visual-signage templates to post near the reservation desk. Templates reflect current state-by-state two-party-consent requirements; we recommend your GC review before deployment. You'll find them in your dashboard under Settings › Compliance after onboarding.
SOC 2 · detailed path
We don’t have an audit report to hand you yet. Here’s the exact status, what’s in scope, and when we expect to be able to send one under NDA.
| Stage | Status | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Trust-service criteria scoped | Complete | Security · Availability · Confidentiality in scope for Type I. |
| Control library drafted | Complete | Mapped to SOC 2 AICPA 2022 framework; access, change mgmt, incident response, vendor review. |
| Audit partner selected | In progress | Two firms in final review. Announcement + timeline published here on signing. |
| Type I report | Target Q3 2026 | Available under NDA on request once issued. |
| Type II report | Target mid-2027 | Requires a 6-month observation window; schedule starts with Type I close. |
If a signed SOC 2 Type II is a contractual requirement for your organization, we’ll say so honestly and point you at incumbents that already hold one. For pilot programs with a 6–12 month horizon, our Type I should arrive in your procurement window.
Data handling · retention + encryption
Call-recording compliance · state-by-state
Most US states are one-party consent. A handful require all-party consent — your recording disclosure needs to be audible before the conversation begins. Deep Bench ships a tested disclosure script (audible notice; delay on pickup for IVR coverage) on any line flagged with a two-party state.
| State | Regime | Deep Bench default |
|---|---|---|
| California | Two-party / all-party consent | Audible disclosure script shipped by default; cross-state calls apply CA rules. |
| Florida | Two-party / all-party consent | Audible disclosure; written consent on file for front-desk scan device. |
| Illinois | Two-party / all-party consent | Eavesdropping Act — audible disclosure before recording engages. |
| Maryland | Two-party / all-party consent | Same default as CA / IL — disclosure precedes record. |
| Massachusetts | Two-party / all-party consent | M.G.L. c. 272 § 99 — disclosure + no secret recording. |
| Montana | Two-party / all-party consent | Disclosure required; disclosure script provided for every line. |
| Nevada | Two-party / all-party consent | Interpretation varies — we default to audible disclosure for safety. |
| New Hampshire | Two-party / all-party consent | Disclosure required; same default as CA. |
| Pennsylvania | Two-party / all-party consent | Wiretap Act — audible disclosure + staff training template. |
| Washington | Two-party / all-party consent | Disclosure + announcement; cross-state applies WA rules. |
| Other 40 states + DC | One-party consent | One-party consent; disclosure still ships by default as a best practice. |
This summary is current as of 2026 and reflects our default configuration. State law changes; your General Counsel should confirm before go-live. If a line is cross-state (guest in CA calling a hotel in TX), Deep Bench applies the stricter regime by default.
PII treatment & redaction
For GDPR / CCPA data-subject requests
Email privacy@deepbench.io. Requests are acknowledged within 5 business days and fulfilled within 30. If the subject is a guest whose call was recorded at one of our hotel customers, we notify the customer tenant as part of the response flow.
The short version
If you have a specific question your brand IT team needs answered before you move forward, email security@deepbench.io. We’ll reply within one business day with citations.
Write us at security@deepbench.io. Same-day reply, with citations.