Existing law establishes the Department of Industrial Relations in the Labor and Workforce Development Agency to administer and enforce various laws relating to employment and working conditions.

This bill would require an employer a business, as defined, to annually provide a notice to the department of all the workplace surveillance tools the employer is using in the workplace. The bill would require the notice to include, among other information, the personal information that will be collected from workers and consumers and whether they will have the option of opting out of the collection of personal information. The bill would require the department to make the notice publicly available on the departments internet website within 30 days of receiving the notice. The bill would define employer to include, among other entities, public employers, as specified. a list of the workplace surveillance tools being used that surveil employees and the categories of information being collected on employees by the workplace surveillance. The bill would also require a business to send the notice to employees and any union that represents employees of the business. The bill would make a business that violates these provisions subject to a civil penalty of $500 per violation.

Existing law establishes the Department of Industrial Relations in the Labor and Workforce Development Agency to administer and enforce various laws relating to employment and working conditions.

This bill would require an employer to annually provide a notice to the department of all the workplace surveillance tools the employer is using in the workplace. The bill would require the notice to include, among other information, the data personal information that will be collected from workers and consumers and whether they will have the option of opting out of the collection of personal data. information. The bill would require the department to make the notice publicly available on the departments internet website within 30 days of receiving the notice. The bill would define employer to include, among other entities, public employers, as specified.

Existing law establishes the Department of Industrial Relations in the Labor and Workforce Development Agency to administer and enforce various laws relating to employment and working conditions.

This bill would state the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation relating to the use of artificial intelligence in the workplace. require an employer to annually provide a notice to the department of all the workplace surveillance tools the employer is using in the workplace. The bill would require the notice to include, among other information, the data that will be collected from workers and consumers and whether they will have the option of opting out of the collection of personal data. The bill would require the department to make the notice publicly available on the departments internet website within 30 days of receiving the notice. The bill would define employer to include, among other entities, public employers, as specified.

Existing law establishes the Department of Industrial Relations in the Labor and Workforce Development Agency to administer and enforce various laws relating to employment and working conditions.

This bill would state the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation relating to the use of artificial intelligence in the workplace.

Date of Hearing: July 8, 2025

Fiscal:

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PRIVACY AND CONSUMER PROTECTION

Rebecca Bauer-Kahan, Chair

SBPCA Bill Id:SB 238

Author:(Smallwood-Cuevas) – As Amended Ver:May 1, 2025

SENATE VOTE: 27-10

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS

SUBJECT: Workplace surveillance tools

SYNOPSIS

Presumably, the right to privacy should not be a commodity that one is required to exchange for the opportunity of employment – or for people to access goods and services, for that matter. While employers surveilling their workers, both during and after work hours, is far from a new phenomenon, advances in affordable surveillance technology have made that surveillance much more intrusive. As with personal information in general, employers are able to collect vast dossiers on their employees by gathering sweeping amounts of data about every aspect of their jobs and personal lives. Many workers, while generally aware they are being monitored, are not aware of the extent of the surveillance or what is being done with the information.

Employers are using more surveillance technology than ever — digital cameras, motion scanners, Radio Frequency Identity (RFID) badges, Apple Watch badges, Bluetooth beacons, keystroke logging — to track every single movement of workers in the office and to gauge their productivity, potentially without the employee knowing that they are being surveilled or what personal information is being collected. Some workplaces are using biometric data such as eye movements, body shifts, and facial expressions, captured by webcams to evaluate whether or not employees are being sufficiently attentive in their work tasks. Even body temperature, sweat, and frequency of bathroom visits can be tracked and analyzed.

This bill requires private and public employers to provide an annual notice to the Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) of all workplace surveillance tools the employer is using in the workplace with specified information about their technological capabilities and uses.

The proposed Committee amendments, detailed in Comment #5, significantly narrow the reporting requirements in the bill, limit the entities required to report to for-profit businesses with more than 100 employees, and conform the definition of “workplace surveillance tool” to the definition contained in AB 1331 (Elhawary).

This bill is author sponsored. It is supported by Oakland Privacy, Consumer Federation of California, and the California Association of Psychiatric Technicians. Among the opponents are a coalition of eight local government associations, including the League of California Cities and the California State Association of Counties.

This bill was previously heard by the Assembly Labor and Employment Committee, where it passed on a 5-1-1 vote.

THIS BILL:

1. Defines “employer” to mean a person who directly or indirectly, or through an agent or any other person, employs or exercises control over the wages, benefits, other compensation, hours, working conditions, access to work or job opportunities, or other terms or conditions of employment, of any worker. “Employer” includes an employer’s labor contractor.
2. States that the term “employer” further includes all branches of state government, or the several counties, cities and counties, and municipalities thereof, or any other political subdivision of the state, or a school district, or any special district, or any authority, commission, or board or any other agency or instrumentality thereof.
3. Defines “personal information” to mean any information that identifies, relates to, describes, is reasonably capable of being associated with, or could reasonably be linked, directly or indirectly, to a worker or a consumer, regardless of how the information is collected, inferred, or obtained.
4. Defines “significant updates or changes” to mean changes that materially alter the function or scope of the surveillance tool, including new forms of data collection or analysis capabilities or new third-party access. Routine maintenance or changes that do not affect the tool’s functionality or data use are not considered significant.
5. Defines “worker” to mean a natural person or that person’s authorized representative acting as a job applicant to, an employee of, or an independent contractor providing service to, or through, a business or a state or local governmental entity in a workplace.
6. Defines “workplace surveillance tool” to mean any system, application, instrument, or device that collects or facilitates the collection of worker personal information, activities, communications, actions, biometrics, or behaviors, or those of the public, by means other than direct observation by a person, including, but not limited to, video or audio surveillance, continuous incremental time-tracking tools, geolocation, electromagnetic tracking, photoelectronic tracking, or use of a photo-optical system or other means.
7. Requires an employer to annually provide a notice to DIR of all workplace surveillance tools the employer is using in the workplace. An employer is not required to report tools that are used exclusively for basic information technology operations, such as spam filters, antivirus software, or server uptime monitors.
8. Requires an employer who began using a workplace surveillance tool before January 1, 2026, to provide the notice before February 1, 2026.
9. Requires the notice to contain all of the following information:
   1. The individuals, vendors, and entities that created the workplace surveillance tool and the individuals, vendors, and entities that will run, manage, or interpret the worker personal information gathered by the workplace surveillance tool.
   2. The name of the model and a description of the technological capabilities of the workplace surveillance tool.
   3. Any significant updates or changes made to the workplace surveillance tool that are already in use or any changes on how the employer is using the existing workplace surveillance tool.
   4. Whether the workplace surveillance tool will affect consumers or other individuals in addition to workers.
   5. The personal information that will be collected from workers or consumers by the workplace surveillance tool and whether they will have the option to opt out of personal information collection.
   6. A list of all entities and individuals other than the employer that will have access to the personal information collected from workers and consumers.
   7. Whether the employer has disclosed the use of the workplace surveillance tool with the affected workers and consumers.
10. Requires the DIR to make the notice publicly available on its internet website within 30 days of receiving the notice from the employer.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Provides, pursuant to the California Constitution, that all people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these is the fundamental right to privacy. (Cal. Const. art. I, § 1.)
2. States that the “right to privacy is a personal and fundamental right protected by Section 1 of Article I of the Constitution of California and by the United States Constitution and that all individuals have a right of privacy in information pertaining to them.” Further states these findings of the Legislature:
   1. The right to privacy is being threatened by the indiscriminate collection, maintenance, and dissemination of personal information and the lack of effective laws and legal remedies.
   2. The increasing use of computers and other sophisticated information technology has greatly magnified the potential risk to individual privacy that can occur from the maintenance of personal information.
   3. In order to protect the privacy of individuals, it is necessary that the maintenance and dissemination of personal information be subject to strict limits. (Civ. Code § 1798.1.)
3. States that advances in science and technology have led to the development of new devices and techniques for the purpose of eavesdropping upon private communications and that the invasion of privacy resulting from the continual and increasing use of such devices and techniques has created a serious threat to the free exercise of personal liberties and cannot be tolerated in a free and civilized society. (Pen. Code § 630.)
4. Prohibits a person from intentionally and without the consent of all parties to a confidential communication, using an electronic amplifying or recording device to eavesdrop upon or record the confidential communication.
   1. For purposes of this section, defines a “person” to mean an individual, business association, partnership, corporation, limited liability company, or other legal entity. (Pen. Code § 632.)
5. Enacts the California Electronic Communications Privacy Act (CalECPA), which generally prohibits a government entity from compelling the production of or access to electronic communication information from a service provider or to electronic device information from any person or entity other than the authorized possessor of the device, absent a search warrant, wiretap order, order for electronic reader records, or subpoena issued pursuant to specified conditions, or pursuant to an order for a pen register or trap and trace device, as specified. (Pen. Code § 1546 et seq.)
6. Establishes the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA). (Civ. Code §§ 1798.100-1798.199.100.)
7. Provides a consumer, subject to exemptions and qualifications, various rights, including the following:
   1. The right to know the business or commercial purpose for collecting, selling, or sharing personal information and the categories of persons to whom the business discloses personal information. (Civ. Code § 1798.110.)
   2. The right to request that a business disclose the specific pieces of information the business has collected about the consumer, and the categories of third parties to whom the personal information was disclosed. (Civ. Code § 1798.110.)
   3. The right to request deletion of personal information that a business has collected from the consumer. (Civ. Code § 1798.105.)
   4. The right to opt out of the sale of the consumer’s personal information if the consumer is over 16 years of age. (Sale of the personal information of a consumer below the age of 16 is barred unless the minor opts-in to its sale.) (Civ. Code § 1798.12.)
   5. The right to direct a business that collects sensitive personal information about the consumer to limit its use of that information to specified necessary uses. (Civ. Code § 1798.121.)
   6. The right to equal service and price, despite the consumer’s exercise of any of these rights, unless the difference in price is reasonably related to the value of the customer’s data. (Civ. Code § 1798.125.)

COMMENTS:

1) Author’s statement. According to the author:

SB 238 ensures transparency and accountability in using workplace surveillance tools and artificial intelligence by requiring employers to disclose what technologies they use, what data is collected, and who has access to that data. As AI increasingly shapes employment decisions without workers’ knowledge, this bill provides a critical baseline for public oversight and worker empowerment. By making this information publicly accessible, SB 238 promotes fairness, privacy, and informed consent in the workplace, particularly for communities disproportionately impacted by surveillance and algorithmic bias.

2) The evolution of workplace surveillance. Employers surveilling their workers, both during and after work hours, is far from a new phenomenon. For almost 200 years, if not longer, employers have been watching their employees’ activities. The roots of employers actively surveilling their workers in the United States can be traced back to the counting of the North-Western Police Agency, later known as the Pinkerton National Detective Agency, in 1855. The agency was borne out of employers’ desire for more control over their employees, both inside and outside of work. Pinkerton detectives fulfilled that need. Among the roles played by the detectives were monitoring workers who were deemed to be a threat to an employer’s interests; infiltrating and busting unions; and enforcing company rules.^[1]

Early efforts at surveilling workers were limited by both the cost of hiring people to watch workers and the lack of technology. Henry Ford, often remembered as the inventor of the modern assembly line, infamously used to prowl his factory floor, timing his workers’ motions with a stopwatch looking for ways to improve efficiency. As with other employers, he also used private investigators to spy on his workers when they were off work to discover if they had any personal problems that could hinder their work.^[2]

As the 20th century wore on, punch time clocks, which allowed employers to track their workers’ work time down to the minute, gave way to closed circuit video cameras, and then starting in the 1980s, computer monitoring became increasingly common.^[3] Even then, it was not humanly possible for employers to monitor their workers 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

Over the last 40 years, advances in technology have allowed employers to surveil their workers in ways that could only have been imagined in science fiction novels. Punch cards have given way to biometric scans, key cards and workplace badges are giving way to RFID tags. A person could not be blamed for finding that technology almost quaint, given the other 21st Century advances in surveillance technology.

Regardless of the type of work employees do, whether it what has been traditionally termed “blue-collar” for the working class, or “white-collar” for the management and professional class, most employees are likely being constantly watched by their employers. For those using computers, whether desktop or laptop, in an office or working remotely, surveillance tools capture their keystrokes and remotely monitor the websites they search on their browsers. As more workers shifted to remote work during the COVID pandemic, employers required their workers to install “bossware” on their home computers, introducing a plethora of invasive surveillance tools into their personal computers and their homes.

Over the last five years, surveillance tools have become more affordable and more intrusive. As with personal information in general, employers are able to collect vast dossiers on their employees, by gathering sweeping amounts of data about every aspect of their jobs and personal lives. Often that is done “without employees’ full informed or free consent. Many workers, while generally aware they are being monitored, don’t know the extent of the surveillance or what is being done with the information.”^[4]

Employers are using more surveillance technology than ever — digital cameras, motion scanners, RFID badges, Apple Watch badges, Bluetooth beacons, keystroke logging — to track every single movement of workers in the office and to gauge their productivity. Some workplaces are using biometric data such as eye movements, body shifts, and facial expressions, captured by computer webcams, to evaluate whether or not their employees are being appropriately attentive in their work tasks. As an example, artificial intelligence (AI) systems at call centers record and grade how workers are handling calls. This technology can be used to “coach” workers while they are talking to customers, telling them to sound happier or be more empathetic.^[5] Another example is wearable technology that, among other things, tracks a worker’s movements throughout the day, gathering biometric data, measuring how many times they use the bathroom, how long they spend in break areas, and which employees are spending time together. According to the author, at least one company sells biometric ID badges with microphones, sensors, and other tools to record conversations, monitor speech, body movements, and location.^[6] Even body temperature, sweat, and frequency of bathroom visits can be tracked and analyzed by employers.

A recent article in MIT Technology Review describes one company’s surveillance tool this way:

Companies that use electronic employee monitoring report that they are most often looking to the technologies not only to increase productivity but also to manage risk. And software like Teramind^[7] offers tools and analysis to help with both priorities. While Teramind, a globally distributed company, keeps its list of over 10,000 client companies private, it provides resources for the financial, health-care, and customer service industries, among others—some of which have strict compliance requirements that can be tricky to keep on top of. The platform allows clients to set data-driven standards for productivity, establish thresholds for alerts about toxic communication tone or language, create tracking systems for sensitive file sharing, and more.

[. . .]

Selecting and tuning the appropriate combination of data is up to Teramind’s clients and depends on the size, goals, and capabilities of the particular company. The companies are also the ones to decide, based on their legal and compliance requirements, what measures to take if thresholds for negative behavior or low performance are hit.^[8]

3) Case study: Amazon. Perhaps the most extreme example of the intrusive surveillance tools used by employers can be found at Amazon. According to documents filed by Amazon workers with the National Labor Relations Board, Amazon tracks every minute that their workers spend off of their tasks. To do this, they use handheld scanners that are also used to track packages. The worker claim they “can receive a written warning for accumulating 30 minutes of time off task in a day one time in a rolling one-year period. They can be fired if they accumulate 120 minutes of time off task in a single day or if they have accumulated 30 minutes of time off task on three separate days in a one-year period.”^[9] Counted among the activities considered “time off task” are going to the bathroom, talking to another worker, or going to the wrong work station. Workers reported that they were afraid to go to the bathroom or get a drink of water for fear of being disciplined.^[10] At the end of each shift, supervisors are required to interrogate the worker with the highest time off task.

Along with the handheld devices, Amazon uses an AI camera system trained on each workstation analyzing workers’ movements. The cameras automatically register the location of products and catalog every mistake workers make.^[11] Monitoring the workers’ non-stop manual also helps improve the AI computer system, which learns from the responses of Amazon’s video reviewers and becomes more accurate over time.^[12]

Oxfam, an international organization focused on fighting global poverty, conducted an investigation into the workplace surveillance practices at both Amazon and Walmart warehouses in the United States. Employers, like Amazon, often claim that their surveillance systems are designed to make workers safer. “However, in recent years worker groups have decried the high injury rates and horrific working conditions that workers encounter as Amazon employees.”^[13] The report describes the surveillance technology as follows:

The scanners play a key role in the surveillance machine because what the scanner records can lead to “Associate Development and Performance Trackers,” or “ADAPTs,” which are automated write-ups that penalize workers for not meeting production goals. In addition, hundreds of security cameras are constantly monitoring the warehouse floor, ready to notify a manager when a worker is away from their station for too long. Badges are another form of worker surveillance, allowing managers to track when workers start or end their shifts, when they take their breaks, and their location across the warehouse. Being monitored this minutely takes a physical and mental toll as workers need to make decisions about taking breaks, eating, going to the bathroom, or even drinking water with their pace or performance metrics in mind.

[. . .]

Another example of the detailed metrics that Amazon monitors is a worker’s units per hour (UPH) score, which records how many actions a worker is able to accomplish in an hour. . . . [W]orker metrics are prominently displayed on a monitor, which keeps workers psychologically primed to constantly worry about “making rate” and about how they are doing compared with their co-workers. . . . Importantly, workers are not told what the data that electronic devices are constantly collecting is being used for, nor are they properly notified of their privacy rights.

4) Analysis. According to the author, the purpose of this bill is to increase transparency by requiring employers to disclose information about the surveillance tools that they are using in the workplace. However, by requiring detailed reporting that will be publicly posted on the DIR website, the bill may pose both a privacy and security risk. Specifically, the bill requires the report to name the individuals that created the workplace surveillance tool; the individuals that will run, manage, or interpret the worker personal information gathered by the workplace surveillance tool; and list of all individuals other than the employer that will have access to the personal information collected from workers and consumers. Requiring the listing of the names of individuals is arguably an erosion of those individual’s privacy in exchange for providing information that may not provide any additional value.

Currently, the bill requires reports to include the name of the model and a description of the technological capabilities of the workplace surveillance tool. Providing this specific level of detail for the surveillance equipment in use could prove to be a significant security risk. Requiring employers to list the type of equipment being used would likely provide sufficient detail.

5) Amendments. In order to reduce the level of detail required in the reports and limit the employers required to report, the author has agreed to the following amendments:

1550. (a)  “Business” means a sole proprietorship, partnership, limited liability company, corporation, association, or other legal entity that is organized or operated for the profit or financial benefit of its shareholders or other owners, that employs more than 100 people and does business in the State of California.

(b) (1) “Employer” means a person who directly or indirectly, or through an agent or any other person, employs or exercises control over the wages, benefits, other compensation, hours, working conditions, access to work or job opportunities, or other terms or conditions of employment, of any worker. This shall include all branches of state government, or the several counties, cities and counties, and municipalities thereof, or any other political subdivision of the state, or a school district, or any special district, or any authority, commission, or board or any other agency or instrumentality thereof.

(2) “Employer” includes an employer’s labor contractor. “Department” means the Department of Industrial Relations.

(c) “Personal information” means any information that identifies, relates to, describes, is reasonably capable of being associated with, or could reasonably be linked, directly or indirectly, to a worker or a consumer, regardless of how the information is collected, inferred, or obtained.

(d) “Significant updates or changes” means changes that materially alter the function or scope of the surveillance tool, including new forms of data collection or analysis capabilities or new third-party access. Routine maintenance or changes that do not affect the tool’s functionality or data use are not considered significant.

(c) (e) “Worker” means a natural person or that person’s authorized representative acting as a job applicant to, an employee of, or an independent contractor providing service to, or through, a business or a state or local governmental entity in a workplace.

1551. (a) (1) An employer A business shall annually provide a notice to the department of all workplace surveillance tools the employer business is using in the workplace.

(2) An employer who began using a workplace surveillance tool before January 1, 2026, shall provide the notice described in paragraph (1) before February 1, 2026.

(3) An employer is not required to report tools that are used exclusively for basic information technology operations, such as spam filters, antivirus software, or server uptime monitors.

(b) The notice shall contain all of the following information:

(1) A list of the workplace surveillance tools being used that surveil employees.

(2) The categories of information being collected on employees by the workplace surveillance tools.

(3) The purpose of the collection of each category of information.

(4) How each category is being used.

(5) How long the information is being kept.

(6) Whether or not the information is being sold and shared and with what entities.

The individuals, vendors, and entities that created the workplace surveillance tool and the individuals, vendors, and entities that will run, manage, or interpret the worker data personal information gathered by the workplace surveillance tool.

(2) The name of the model and a description of the technological capabilities of the workplace surveillance tool.

(3) Any significant updates or changes made to the workplace surveillance tool that are already in use or any changes on how the employer is using the existing workplace surveillance tool.

(4) Whether the workplace surveillance tool will affect consumers or other individuals in addition to workers.

(5) The data personal information that will be collected from workers or consumers by the workplace surveillance tool and whether they will have the option to opt out of personal data information collection.

(6) A list of all entities and individuals other than the employer that will have access to the data personal information collected from workers and consumers.

(7) Whether the employer has disclosed the use of the workplace surveillance tool with the affected workers and consumers.

AB 1331 (Elhawary), similar to this measure, also focuses on technology that surveils workers. AB 1331 and this bill, however, have somewhat different definitions of “workplace surveillance tool.” The author has agreed to an amendment that makes the definitions in this bill compatible with the definition in AB 1331. The amendment is as follows:

1550. (f) “Workplace surveillance tool” means any system, application, instrument, or device that collects or facilitates the collection of information about the workers’ personal information, activities, communications, actions, biometrics, or behaviors, or those of about the public, that are capable of passively surveilling workers, by means other than direct observation by a person, including, but not limited to, video or audio surveillance, continuous incremental time-tracking tools, geolocation, electromagnetic tracking, photoelectronic tracking, or use of a photo-optical system or other means. electronic workplace tracking, geolocation, electromagnetic tracking, photoelectronic tracking, or utilization of a photo-optical system or other means. “Workplace surveillance tool” does not include smoke or carbon monoxide detectors or weapon detection systems that automatically screen a person’s body.

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: Oakland Privacy writes in support:

As a privacy group, we want to focus this letter on the intersection between the proposal in Senate bill 238 and already existing privacy protections. When the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) was enacted, it contained an exemption or carve-out for workers who were employed by covered employers. That exemption sunsetted and was not renewed and qualified California employers became subject to the CCPA and the succeeding ballot initiative, the California Privacy Rights Act, CPRA. Because SB 238 enacts its protections into the labor code, rather than into the Civil Code under CPRA, it is important that both its provisions and its remedies be consistent with the privacy protections in the civil code. We believe that to be the case and it is an essential factor in our support for the bill.

As one might expect from a law titled the California Consumer Privacy Act, the CCPA and its later amendment are focused on the public as consumers. We recognize that employer/employee is a different kind of relationship than business/customer and that the power dynamics in place are substantially different.

That is why we see enhanced protections for workers on top of the basement protections provided by the comprehensive statewide data privacy law to be appropriate, including the enforcement agent being the Labor and Workforce Agency.

Another element that SB 238 adds to privacy protections available to California workers is to extend the protections in this bill to workers who work for public employers in the state, as well as to companies too small to be covered entities under CPRA. For these employees this bill, or one like it, would be the only workplace privacy protections they would be eligible for. For that reason alone, workplace privacy protections in addition to CPRA are neither duplicative nor excessive.

The protections provided by Senate Bill 238, while they do go beyond the right to know, right to correct, and right to opt-out structure provided by CPRA, are fairly basic. They include prompt and informed notice requirements that are delivered within 30 days that include meaningful information about the technological tools being used, who runs and operates them, what data will be collected, who will have access to it and whether it is possible to opt out of the collection if one wishes. These parameters are similar to what a best practice “privacy policy” on a consumer website is supposed to provide and essentially maintains the right to know and the right to opt out (when possible) in a proactive rather than reactive fashion. It makes perfect sense to place the burden of a reporting mechanism on employers rather than placing the burden of inquiry on employees who may be scared or intimidated to launch such inquiries - and thus this bill protects their right to know.

From a fiscal point of view, California’s economic vitality is tied to the energy, morale and initiative of its workforce, and the dystopian workplace of science fiction is likely incompatible with a dynamic economy. Protective measures like SB 238 to keep human workers in California motivated and empowered are an important way to maintain the world’s 4th largest economy and California’s reputation for imagination and innovation.

To address the elephant in the room, a more aggressive bill on employee surveillance, Issac Bryan’s AB 1221, did not survive the appropriations process. The opposition to that bill has now turned their attention to SB 238, which is a much more measured bill. We find this misguided. Many of the concerns directed at the Assembly bill are addressed in Senate Bill 238 and the approach here is very balanced.

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: In opposition to the bill, a coalition of local government organizations argues:

SB 238 Would Widely Apply to Many Technologies

We understand the reasonable concerns about the slow creep of surveillance tools into every aspect of daily life. However, the scope of this bill is vast and would deem banal tools used for everyday work, including badge access, collaboration tools like Teams or Slack, or GPS tools used to track fleets, to be “surveillance tools” whose use could be covered by this bill. Under SB 238, any device that collects or facilitates collection of data of an employee’s activities, actions, communications, behaviors, personal information, or biometrics, or those of the public, is deemed a surveillance tool. Given the bill’s broad scope, the burdens from compliance with its notification requirements are significant.

SB 238 Would Jeopardize Local Government and Schools Security Efforts

SB 238 would require reporting to the Department of Industrial Relations (DIR), and for the DIR to thereafter publicize, sensitive data on which tools public employers use, their capabilities, and the names of individuals and vendors that run the systems or receive data. Disclosure of this information could provide a material advantage to bad actors seeking to exploit vulnerabilities or gaps in coverage.

Due to the unique aspects of public sector service delivery, public employers may use a variety of surveillance tools to protect employees, students, or the public at large, including emergency alarms for teachers, body cameras for law enforcement, or tools used for public vehicle fleets, including dash cameras, speed monitors, or GPS tracking. Local governments are responsible for securing and operating critical infrastructure, jails, hospitals, police and fire departments, and protecting students in schools.

Further, we have seen rising hostility and threats against government entities and their workforces. That includes violence and threats of violence against government employees whose job requires them to serve the public like library staff, teachers, firefighters, benefits officers, among myriad other examples.

Reporting and publication of the detailed information required by SB 238 could set back public employers’ efforts to protect employees and the public.

SB 238 is an Unfunded Mandate on Local Budgets

The initial and ongoing reporting obligations required by this bill will burden local human resources and information technology departments, increasing costs and diverting them from their core responsibilities. This constitutes an unfunded mandate on public employers without a clear need. For schools, this is a drain of Proposition 98 funding.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

California Association of Psychiatric Technicians
California Federation of Labor Unions, Afl-cio
Consumer Federation of California
Oakland Privacy

Oppose

Acclamation Insurance Management Services
Allied Managed Care
American Petroleum and Convenience Store Association
Associated General Contractors
Association of California Healthcare Districts (ACHD)
Association of California School Administrators
California Alliance of Family Owned Businesses
California Apartment Assocation
California Association of Joint Powers Authorities (CAJPA)
California Association of Sheet Metal & Air Conditioning Contractors National Association
California Association of Winegrape Growers
California Attractions and Parks Association
California Beer and Beverage Distributors
California Chamber of Commerce
California Credit Union League
California Farm Bureau
California Grocers Association
California Hospital Association
California Landscape Contractors Association
California League of Food Producers
California Retailers Association
California Special Districts Association
California State Association of Counties (CSAC)
Coalition of Small and Disabled Veteran Businesses
Flasher Barricade Association
Housing Contractors of California
League of California Cities
Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce
Pacific Association of Building Service Contractors
Rural County Representatives of California (RCRC)
Security Industry Association
Urban Counties of California (UCC)
Western Car Wash Association
Wine Institute

Oppose Unless Amended

California Airports Council

Analysis Prepared by: Julie Salley / P. & C.P. / (916) 319-2200

1. Ifeoma Ajunwa, et al. “Limitless Worker Surveillance” 105 California Law Review 735 (2017) https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2746211 ↑

2. Ibid. ↑

3. Ibid. ↑

4. Ibid. ↑

5. Kevin Roose, “A Machine May Not Take Your Job, but One Could Become Your Boss,” New York Times (Jun. 23, 2019) https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/23/technology/artificial-intelligence-ai-workplace.html ↑

6. Humanyze: The Future of Workforce & Market Intelligence https://humanyze.com/ ↑

7. https://www.teramind.co/solutions/compliance-management/ ↑

8. Rebecca Akermann, “Your Boss is Watching,” MIT Technology Review (Feb. 24, 2025 ↑

9. Lauren Kaori Gurley, “Internal Documents Show Amazon’s Dystopian System for Tracking Workers Every Minute of Their Shifts” Vice (Jun. 2, 2022) https://www.vice.com/en/article/internal-documents-show-amazons-dystopian-system-for-tracking-workers-every-minute-of-their-shifts/ ↑

10. Ibid. ↑

11. Niamh McIntyre and Rosie Bradbury, The eyes of Amazon: a hidden workforce driving a vast surveillance system, The Bureau of Investigative Journalism (Nov. 21, 2022) https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/stories/2022-11-21/the-eyes-of-amazon-a-hidden-workforce-driving-a-vast-surveillance-system/ ↑

12. Ibid. ↑

13. At Work and Under Watch: Surveillance and suffering at Amazon and Walmart warehouse, Oxfam (Apr. 10, 2024) https://www.oxfamamerica.org/explore/research-publications/at-work-and-under-watch/ ↑

Date of Hearing: June 25, 2025

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT

Liz Ortega, Chair

SBPCA Bill Id:SB 238

Author:(Smallwood-Cuevas) – As Amended Ver:May 1, 2025

SENATE VOTE: 27-10

SUBJECT: Workplace surveillance tools

SUMMARY: Requires private and public employers to annually provide a notice to the Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) of all workplace surveillance tools the employer is using in the workplace with specified information about their technological capabilities and uses. Further requires the DIR to make the notice publicly available on its internet website within 30 days of receiving the notice. Specifically, this bill:

1. Defines “employer” to mean a person who directly or indirectly, or through an agent or any other person, employs or exercises control over the wages, benefits, other compensation, hours, working conditions, access to work or job opportunities, or other terms or conditions of employment, of any worker. “Employer” includes an employer’s labor contractor.
2. States that the term “employer” further includes all branches of state government, or the several counties, cities and counties, and municipalities thereof, or any other political subdivision of the state, or a school district, or any special district, or any authority, commission, or board or any other agency or instrumentality thereof.
3. Defines “personal information” to mean any information that identifies, relates to, describes, is reasonably capable of being associated with, or could reasonably be linked, directly or indirectly, to a worker or a consumer, regardless of how the information is collected, inferred, or obtained.
4. Defines “significant updates or changes” to mean changes that materially alter the function or scope of the surveillance tool, including new forms of data collection or analysis capabilities or new third-party access. Routine maintenance or changes that do not affect the tool’s functionality or data use are not considered significant.
5. Defines “worker” to mean a natural person or that person’s authorized representative acting as a job applicant to, an employee of, or an independent contractor providing service to, or through, a business or a state or local governmental entity in a workplace.
6. Defines “workplace surveillance tool” to mean any system, application, instrument, or device that collects or facilitates the collection of worker personal information, activities, communications, actions, biometrics, or behaviors, or those of the public, by means other than direct observation by a person, including, but not limited to, video or audio surveillance, continuous incremental time-tracking tools, geolocation, electromagnetic tracking, photoelectronic tracking, or use of a photo-optical system or other means.
7. Requires an employer to annually provide a notice to DIR of all workplace surveillance tools the employer is using in the workplace. An employer is not required to report tools that are used exclusively for basic information technology operations, such as spam filters, antivirus software, or server uptime monitors.
8. Requires an employer who began using a workplace surveillance tool before January 1, 2026, to provide the notice before February 1, 2026.
9. Requires the notice to contain all of the following information:
   1. The individuals, vendors, and entities that created the workplace surveillance tool and the individuals, vendors, and entities that will run, manage, or interpret the worker personal information gathered by the workplace surveillance tool.
   2. The name of the model and a description of the technological capabilities of the workplace surveillance tool.
   3. Any significant updates or changes made to the workplace surveillance tool that are already in use or any changes on how the employer is using the existing workplace surveillance tool.
   4. Whether the workplace surveillance tool will affect consumers or other individuals in addition to workers.
   5. The personal information that will be collected from workers or consumers by the workplace surveillance tool and whether they will have the option to opt out of personal information collection.
   6. A list of all entities and individuals other than the employer that will have access to the personal information collected from workers and consumers.
   7. Whether the employer has disclosed the use of the workplace surveillance tool with the affected workers and consumers.
10. Requires the DIR to make the notice publicly available on its internet website within 30 days of receiving the notice from the employer.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Establishes the DIR within the Labor and Workforce Development Agency to administer and enforce various employment laws and to improve the working conditions of wage earners. Labor Code §50, 50.5.
2. Provides, under the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018, various rights to consumers in respect to personal information that is collected or sold by a business, as defined. Civil Code §1798.100 et seq.

FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Senate Appropriations Committee,

“DIR indicates that it would incur first-year costs of $2.4 million, and $1.5 million annually thereafter, to implement the provisions of the bill (Labor Enforcement and Compliance Fund).”

COMMENTS: This bill is double referred to the Assembly Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee upon passage out of this Committee.

Workplace surveillance is on the rise

Employers are increasingly relying on technology to monitor, manage, and collect data on their workers. Common surveillance tools include cameras, microphones, computer monitoring software, geolocation, tracking applications, and devices worn by workers.^[1] The technology company ExpressVPN found that close to 80% of employers use monitoring software to track employee performance. ^[2] With employer surveillance on the rise, workers have limited access to spaces in their workplace, or around their homes that are not under constant surveillance. Employers use workplace surveillance to track and prevent workers from advocating for their rights. The new surveillance state at the workplace has proven to increase psychological distress, stress, and lower job satisfaction among workers. ^[3]

Surveillance and the potential for discrimination

In a 2024 study by the U.S. Government Accountability Office on digital surveillance in the workplace, stakeholders who provided comment raised the concern that such technology could lead to discriminatory impacts. They noted that surveillance technology may exhibit bias towards certain groups of workers. For example, workplace “surveillance could lead to potential discrimination or bias toward workers with disabilities, particularly in instances where productivity monitoring does not account for individual needs for more time to complete tasks.^[4]”

According to the author, “SB 238 ensures transparency and accountability in using workplace surveillance tools and artificial intelligence by requiring employers to disclose what technologies they use, what data is collected, and who has access to that data. As AI increasingly shapes employment decisions without workers’ knowledge, this bill provides a critical baseline for public oversight and worker empowerment. By making this information publicly accessible, SB 238 promotes fairness, privacy, and informed consent in the workplace, particularly for communities disproportionately impacted by surveillance and algorithmic bias.”

The author further states that, “SB 238 promotes equity solutions by increasing transparency and public accountability around workplace surveillance tools. These tools disproportionately affect low-wage workers, workers of color, and other marginalized groups employed in industries with high surveillance exposure, such as warehousing, retail, and service sectors. By requiring employers to disclose the types of surveillance technologies used, the data collected, and who has access to that data, SB 238 helps safeguard the privacy and dignity of workers who are least likely to have power in the workplace.

This bill advances the goals of HR 39 by identifying and addressing systemic inequities in employment practices, specifically those that contribute to racial, economic, and digital injustice. The public reporting requirements empower workers, labor organizations, and policymakers to understand better and mitigate harms caused by invasive technologies, which often track behavior in ways that reinforce bias and result in discriminatory outcomes. By centering transparency, SB 238 maximizes benefits for underserved communities and supports more equitable workplace policies across the public and private sectors.”

Committee Comments

This year has seen a number of bills introduced to regulate AI in the workplace. For example, AB 1331 (Elhawary), similar to this measure, focuses on technology that surveils workers. AB 1331 and this bill, however, have somewhat different definitions of “workplace surveillance tool.” Committee staff recommends that the author consider harmonizing these definitions if the two bills advance this year. Additionally, committee staff is informed that the definition of “worker” (proposed Labor Code §1550(e)) under SB 238 will be amended subsequent to this committee to ensure it is as broad in coverage as the definition of “employer” (proposed Labor Code §1550(b)(1)) under the bill. Committee staff further recommends that the author in the future define the term “entities” in the employer notice requirement (proposed Labor Code §1551(b)(1)). Finally, the requirement that the notice address whether a workplace surveillance tool will affect consumers or other individuals in addition to workers would be more meaningful if it also asked how it will impact these persons (proposed Labor Code §1551(b)(4)).

Arguments in Support

The Consumer Federation of California is in support and states, “As AI and digital surveillance tools become more common in modern workplaces, workers face rising risks to their privacy, autonomy, and job security. From biometric scanners and geolocation trackers to algorithmic productivity scoring, these technologies are often implemented with little to no transparency. A Guardian article reported that call center employees were graded by AI systems based on how they handled incoming calls, with those who deviated from the script receiving failing marks. Additionally, the article found that some corporations use surveillance software to monitor employee emails and flag messages containing the word “union.”

Through a basic disclosure framework, SB 238 increases transparency and accountability in the workplace by ensuring that workers, policymakers, and regulators know what technologies are being used to monitor employees, what data is being collected, and who controls it.”

Arguments in Opposition

A coalition of employer organizations, including the California Chamber of Commerce, are opposed and state, “The breadth of information that SB 238 requires to be reported to DIR and made publicly available online is concerning to many of our members. The definition of workplace surveillance tools in the bill is very broad and encompasses many tools that are standard and basic components of a security program on an employer’s premises or cybersecurity software. Video surveillance, communications/equipment tracking, and cybersecurity software are especially necessary for workplace safety as well as the prevention and investigation of fraud and theft. For example, financial institutions must have highly sophisticated security systems, otherwise there is risk of theft or exposure of sensitive consumer information. They would be required to disclose exactly which tools they use, a description of its capabilities, the names of individuals and vendors that run or receive any of that data, and what changes have been made to those systems. This is essentially requiring those institutions to provide a roadmap for bad actors to gain a better understanding of the tools they are using for fraud prevention and security measures and how to exploit them.”

Related and Prior Legislation

AB 1331 (Elhawary) of 2025 would limit the use of workplace surveillance tools, as defined, by employers, including by prohibiting an employer from monitoring or surveilling workers in employee-only, employer-designated areas, as specified. The bill would provide workers with the right to leave behind workplace surveillance tools that are on their person or in their possession during off-duty hours, as specified. This bill is pending in the Senate Labor, Public Employment and Retirement Committee.

SB 1442 (Smallwood-Cuevas) of 2024 would prohibit a grocery retail store or a retail drug establishment from providing a self-service checkout option for customers unless specified conditions are satisfied. The bill would also require a grocery retail store or retail drug establishment that intends to implement consequential workplace technology, as defined, to notify workers, their collective bargaining representatives, and the public at least 60 days in advance of the implementation of the technology with a general description of the technology and the intended purpose of the technology. The bill was held in the Assembly Rules Committee.

AB 701 (Lorena Gonzalez) Chapter 197, Statutes of 2021 requires specified employers to provide to each employee, defined as a nonexempt employee who works at a warehouse distribution center, with a written description of each quota to which the employee is subject, including the quantified number of tasks to be performed, or materials to be produced or handled, within the defined time period, and any potential adverse employment action that could result from failure to meet the quota. The bill also prohibits an employer from taking adverse action against an employee for failure to meet a quota that has not been disclosed or for failure to meet a quota that does not allow a worker to comply with meal or rest periods or occupational health and safety laws.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

California Alliance for Retired Americans
California Association of Psychiatric Technicians
California Federation of Labor Unions, Afl-cio
Consumer Federation of California
Oakland Privacy
Orange County Employees Association
Techequity Action

Opposition

Acclamation Insurance Management Services
Allied Managed Care
American Petroleum and Convenience Store Association
American Petroleum and Convenience Store Association Apca
Associaiton of California School Administrators
Associated General Contractors of California
California Alliance of Family Owned Businesses
California Apartment Assocation
California Association of Joint Powers Authorities (CAJPA)
California Association of Sheet Metal & Air Conditioning Contractors National Association
California Association of Winegrape Growers
California Attractions and Parks Association
California Beer and Beverage Distributors
California Chamber of Commerce
California Credit Union League
California Farm Bureau
California Grocers Association
California Hospital Association
California Landscape Contractors Association
California League of Food Producers
California Retailers Association
California Special Districts Association
California State Association of Counties (CSAC)
Coalition of Small and Disabled Veteran Businesses
Flasher Barricade Association
Housing Contractors of California
League of California Cities
Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce
Rural County Representatives of California (RCRC)
Security Industry Association
Urban Counties of California (UCC)
Western Car Wash Association
Wine Institute

Oppose Unless Amended

California Airports Council

Analysis Prepared by: Megan Lane / L. & E. /

1. “Digital Surveillance of Workers: Tools, Uses, and Stakeholder Perspectives,” GAO-24-107639, August 28, 2024. ↑

2. https://www.cnbc.com/2023/04/24/employee-surveillance-is-on-the-rise-that-could-backfire-on-employers.html. ↑

3. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11300163/. ↑

4. “Digital Surveillance of Workers: Tools, Uses, and Stakeholder Perspectives,” GAO-24-107639, August 28, 2024. ↑

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: SB 238

Author: Smallwood-Cuevas (D)

Amended: 5/1/25

Vote: 21

SENATE LABOR, PUB. EMP. & RET. COMMITTEE: 4-1, 4/23/25

AYES: Smallwood-Cuevas, Cortese, Durazo, Laird

NOES: Strickland

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: 11-2, 4/29/25

AYES: Umberg, Allen, Arreguín, Ashby, Caballero, Durazo, Laird, Stern, Wahab, Weber Pierson, Wiener

NOES: Niello, Valladares

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 5-1, 5/23/25

AYES: Caballero, Cabaldon, Grayson, Richardson, Wahab

NOES: Seyarto

NO VOTE RECORDED: Dahle

SUBJECT: Workplace surveillance tools

SOURCE: Author

DIGEST:

This bill requires 1) an employer to annually provide a notice to the Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) of all workplace surveillance tools the employer is using in the workplace, and 2) DIR to make the employer-provided notice publicly available on the Department’s internet website.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Establishes the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), which grants consumers certain rights with regard to their personal information, including enhanced notice, access, and disclosure; the right to deletion; the right to restrict the sale of information; and protection from discrimination for exercising these rights. It places attendant obligations on businesses to respect those rights. (Civil Code § 1798.100 et seq.)
2. Establishes the Consumer Privacy Rights Act (CPRA), which amends the CCPA and creates the California Privacy Protection Agency (PPA), which is charged with implementing these privacy laws, promulgating regulations, and carrying out enforcement actions. (Civil Code § 1798.100 et seq.; Proposition 24 (2020))
3. Defines “artificial intelligence” to mean an engineered or machine-based system that varies in its level of autonomy and that can, for explicit or implicit objectives, infer from the input it receives how to generate outputs that can influence physical or virtual environments. (Government Code § 11546.45.5)
4. Establishes the Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) in the Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA), and vests it with various powers and duties to foster, promote, and develop the welfare of the wage earners of California, to improve their working conditions, and to advance their opportunities for profitable employment. (Labor Code § 50.5)
5. Requires employers to provide to each employee, upon hire, a written description of each quota to which the employee is subject, including the quantified number of tasks to be performed or materials to be produced or handled, within the defined time period, and any potential adverse employment action that could result from failure to meet the quota. (Labor Code § 2101)
6. Prohibits an employer from requiring an employee to meet a quota that prevents compliance with meal or rest periods, use of bathroom facilities, including reasonable travel time to and from bathroom facilities, or occupational health and safety laws in the Labor Code or division standards. (Labor Code § 2101)
7. Prohibits an employer from taking adverse employment actions against an employee for failure to meet a quota that does not allow a worker to comply with meal and rest periods, or occupational health and safety laws in the Labor Code or division standards, or for failure to meet a quota that has not been disclosed to the employee. (Labor Code § 2101)

This bill:

1. Defines, among others, the following terms:
   1. “Employer” means a person who directly or indirectly, or through an agent or any other person, employs or exercises control over the wages, benefits, other compensation, hours, working conditions, access to work or job opportunities, or other terms or conditions of employment, of any worker. This shall include all branches of state government, or the several counties, cities and counties, and municipalities thereof, or any other political subdivision of the state, or a school district, or any special district, or any authority, commission, or board or any other agency or instrumentality thereof.
      1. “Employer” includes an employer’s labor contractor.
   2. “Personal information” means any information that identifies, relates to, describes, is reasonably capable of being associated with, or could reasonably be linked, directly or indirectly, to a worker or a consumer, regardless of how the information is collected, inferred, or obtained.
   3. “Significant updates or changes” means changes that materially alter the function or scope of the surveillance tool, including new forms of data collection or analysis capabilities or new third-party access. Routine maintenance or changes that do not affect the tool’s functionality or data use are not considered significant.
   4. “Worker” means a natural person or that person’s authorized representative acting as a job applicant to, an employee of, or an independent contractor providing service to, or through, a business or a state or local governmental entity in a workplace.
   5. “Workplace surveillance tool” means any system, application, instrument, or device that collects or facilitates the collection of worker personal information, activities, communications, actions, biometrics, or behaviors, or those of the public, by means other than direct observation by a person, including, but not limited to, video or audio surveillance, continuous incremental time-tracking tools, geolocation, electromagnetic tracking, photoelectronic tracking, or use of a photo-optical system or other means.
2. Requires an employer to annually provide a notice to DIR of all workplace surveillance tools the employer is using in the workplace.
   1. Excluding tools that are used exclusively for basic information technology operations, such as spam filters, antivirus software, or server uptime monitors.
3. For an employer that began using a workplace surveillance tool before January 1, 2026, requires the employer to provide the notice before February 1, 2026.
4. Requires the notice to contain all of the following information:
   1. The individuals, vendors, and entities that created the workplace surveillance tool and the individuals, vendors, and entities that will run, manage, or interpret the worker personal information gathered by the workplace surveillance tool.
   2. The name of the model and a description of the technological capabilities of the workplace surveillance tool.
   3. Any significant updates or changes made to the workplace surveillance tool that are already in use or any changes on how the employer is using the existing workplace surveillance tool.
   4. Whether the workplace surveillance tool will affect consumers or other individuals in addition to workers.
   5. The personal information that will be collected from workers or consumers by the workplace surveillance tool and whether they will have the option to opt out of personal information collection.
   6. A list of all entities and individuals other than the employer that will have access to the personal information collected from workers and consumers.
   7. Whether the employer has disclosed the use of the workplace surveillance tool with the affected workers and consumers.
5. Requires DIR to make the employer-provided notice publicly available on the department’s internet website within 30 days of receiving the notice from the employer.

Background

Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Surveillance. With technological advancements happening faster than humans can react, we often miss opportunities to pause and evaluate its impact. Until recently, advancements in technology often automated physical tasks, such as those performed on factory floors or self-checkouts, but artificial intelligence (AI) functions more like human brainpower. AI can use algorithms to accomplish tasks faster and sometimes at a lower cost than human workers can. As this technology develops, so do fears of worker displacement in more areas and industries.

Specifically around surveillance, AI surveillance involves the use of computer software and algorithms to analyze video footage that goes beyond motion detection. AI surveillance tools are being used to monitor areas through video, satellite or even drones. These tools can allow the systems to see and interpret information, from tracking movements in real-time to analyzing and predicting behavior. A system installed in a secure facility, for example, could use computer vision to identify unauthorized individuals, track movements within restricted areas, and detect any unusual behavior that might indicate a security breach.

Over the last several years, the Legislature has considered a multitude of bills aimed at regulating AI and its use to ensure that the privacy rights of Californians continue to be protected. This year, there are several bills in the labor and employment space attempting to regulate the use of AI powered tools from decision making systems to surveillance.

This bill [SB 238] is one of those efforts requiring employers to provide notice on the use of workplace surveillance tools to DIR and requires the Department to post such notices on its internet website.

Need for this bill? According to the author:

“Current law currently lacks transparency and regulatory oversight over the use of artificial intelligence (AI) and workplace surveillance tools by employers. Although the Department of Industrial Relations administers and enforces laws related to employment and working conditions, no existing statute mandates that employers disclose what surveillance technologies they use, what data they collect, or who can access it. SB 238 aims to address the deficiency by introducing transparency and public accountability measures. The bill is intended to protect worker privacy and ensuring ethical use of AI in employment settings by making surveillance practice visible to both regulators and the public.”

Related/Prior Legislation

SB 7 (McNerney, 2025) would, among other things, require an employer to provide a written notice that an automated decision system (ADS), for the purpose of making employment-related decisions, is in use at the workplace to all workers that will be directly or indirectly affected by the ADS, as specified.

AB 1018 (Bauer-Kahan, 2025) would, among other things, regulate the development and deployment of an ADS used to make consequential decisions, as defined.

AB 1221 (Bryan, 2025) would require an employer, at least 30 days before introducing a workplace surveillance tool, as defined, to provide a worker who will be affected with a written notice that includes, among other things, a description of the data to be collected, the intended purpose, and how this form of worker surveillance is necessary to meet that purpose.

AB 1331 (Elhawary, 2025) would limit the use of workplace surveillance tools, as defined, by employers, including by prohibiting an employer from monitoring or surveilling workers in private, off-duty areas, as specified, and requiring workplace surveillance tools to be disabled during off-duty hours, as specified, and subjects violators to specified penalties.

[NOTE: Please see the Senate Labor, Public Employment and Retirement Committee analysis on this bill for more background information and information on prior legislation.]

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: No

According to the Senate Appropriations Committee DIR indicates that it would incur first-year costs of $2.4 million, and $1.5 million annually thereafter, to implement the provisions of the bill (Labor Enforcement and Compliance Fund).

SUPPORT: (Verified 5/23/25)

California Alliance for Retired Americans

California Association of Psychiatric Technicians

California Federation of Labor Unions, AFL-CIO

Oakland Privacy

Orange County Employees Association

TechEquity Action

OPPOSITION: (Verified 5/23/25)

Acclamation Insurance Management Services

Allied Managed Care

American Petroleum and Convenience Store Association

Associated General Contractors of California

California Alliance of Family Owned Businesses

California Apartment Association

California Association of Sheet Metal & Air Conditioning Contractors National Association

California Association of Winegrape Growers

California Attractions and Parks Association

California Beer & Beverage Distributors

California Chamber of Commerce

California Credit Union League

California Farm Bureau

California Grocers Association

California Hospital Association

California League of Food Producers

California Retailers Association

Coalition of Small and Disabled Veteran Businesses

Flasher Barricade Association

Housing Contractors of California

Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce

Security Industry Association

Wine Institute

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT:

According to the California Federation of Labor Unions:

“Workplace surveillance is not a new phenomenon, however, the tools currently available to employers are far more powerful and invasive than a simple camera or microphone. Employers now have access to seemingly military grade surveillance technology that can track heat signatures, biometrics, and walking patterns. A recent study published by coworker.org reported over 500 surveillance and management tools currently being sold to employers to track worker activities, interactions, and body movements. These tools are widely available and surprisingly affordable. Workers live in a constant state of surveillance and are often unaware they are even being watched.

SB 238 seeks to increase transparency in the workplace by requiring employers to disclose their use of workplace surveillance tools to the Department of Industrial Relations. Transparency is essential to foster public trust and a safe working environment.”

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION:

According to a coalition of employer organizations, including the California Chamber of Commerce:

“The breadth of information that SB 238 requires to be reported to DIR and made publicly available online is concerning to many of our members. The definition of workplace surveillance tools in the bill is very broad and encompasses many tools that are standard and basic components of a security program on an employer’s premises or cybersecurity software. Video surveillance, communications/equipment tracking, and cybersecurity software are especially necessary for workplace safety as well as the prevention and investigation of fraud and theft. For example, financial institutions must have highly sophisticated security systems…This is essentially requiring those institutions to provide a roadmap for bad actors to gain a better understanding of the tools they are using for fraud prevention and security measures and how to exploit them…

Further, SB 238 would impose a significant workload on an already overburdened DIR. For example, California has more than 1.7 million private sector businesses and an additional 3 million sole proprietorships. Because of the breadth of the definition of “workplace surveillance tools,” even a security camera or server that stores emails would count under that definition, meaning that DIR would be required to sift through, label, and publish lists of millions of different tools. Not only is that burdensome, but it is difficult to imagine how such an information overload is useful to the public.”

Prepared by: Alma Perez-Schwab / L., P.E. & R. / (916) 651-1556

5/25/25 14:01:10

**** END ****

SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Senator Anna Caballero, Chair

2025 - 2026 Regular Session

SB 238 (Smallwood-Cuevas) - Workplace surveillance tools

Bill Summary:

SB 238 would require (1) an employer to provide on an annual basis a notice, containing specified information, to the Department of Industrial Relations (DIR), of all workplace surveillance tools the employer is using in the workplace, and (2) DIR to make the employer-provided notice publicly available on its internet site.

Fiscal Impact:

DIR indicates that it would incur first-year costs of $2.4 million, and $1.5 million annually thereafter, to implement the provisions of the bill (Labor Enforcement and Compliance Fund).

Background:

Workplace surveillance tools are technologies used by employers to monitor and evaluate things such as workflow and employee activities and performance. Common examples include keystroke logging software, which tracks keyboard activity to gauge productivity, and screen monitoring tools that capture screenshots or live feeds of employee screens. Email and communication monitoring systems are also widely used to scan messages for sensitive information or inappropriate content. GPS tracking is used to monitor employees’ location and movement, both in the field and in factories and other workplaces. Additionally, video surveillance cameras in offices or warehouses can monitor physical behavior and security. In recent years, some employers are even requiring workers to wear tracking tools that monitor not only location and movement, but biometric information. These tools aim to enhance productivity and security; at the same time, however, they raise concerns in several areas, including privacy.

Proposed Law:

This bill, among other things, would do the following:

• Require an employer (as defined) to annually provide a notice to DIR of all workplace surveillance tools (as defined) the employer is using in the workplace.
• For an employer that began using a workplace surveillance tool before January 1, 2026, require the employer to provide the notice before February 1, 2026.
• Provide that an employer is not required to report tools that are used exclusively for basic information technology operations, such as spam filters, antivirus software, or server uptime monitors.
• Require the notice to contain all of the following information: (1) the individuals, vendors, and entities that created the workplace surveillance tool and the individuals, vendors, and entities that will run, manage, or interpret the worker data gathered by the workplace surveillance tool, (2) the name of the model and a description of the technological capabilities of the workplace surveillance tool, (3) any significant updates or changes (as defined) made to the workplace surveillance tool that are already in use or any changes on how the employer is using the existing workplace surveillance tool, (4) whether the workplace surveillance tool will affect consumers or other individuals in addition to workers, (5) the personal information (as defined) that will be collected from workers or consumers by the workplace surveillance tool and whether they will have the option to opt out of personal information collection, (6) a list of all entities and individuals other than the employer that will have access to the personal information collected from workers and consumers, and (7) whether the employer has disclosed the use of the workplace surveillance tool with the affected workers and consumers.
• Require DIR to make the employer provided notice publicly available on its internet site within 30 days of receiving the notice from the employer.

Related Legislation:

• SB 7 (McNerney) would, among other things, require an employer to provide a written notice that an ADS, for the purpose of making employment-related decisions, is in use at the workplace to all workers that will be directly or indirectly affected by the ADS, as specified. The bill is currently pending in this Committee.
• SB 53 (Wiener) would establish a consortium tasked with developing a framework for a public cloud computing cluster that advances the ethical development and deployment of AI that is safe, ethical, equitable, and sustainable. This bill creates protections for whistleblowers working with specified AI models when reporting on "critical risks" and requires developers to provide processes for anonymous reporting of activities posing such risks. The bill is currently pending in this Committee.
• SB 503 (Weber Pierson) would require the Department of Health Care Access and Information and the Department of Technology to establish an advisory board related to the use of AI in health care services. Specifically, the bill would require the advisory board to perform specified duties, including, but not limited to, developing a standardized testing system with criteria for developers to test AI models or AI systems for biased impacts. The bill is currently pending in this Committee.
• AB 1018 (Bauer-Kahan) would, among other things, regulate the development and deployment of an ADS used to make consequential decisions, as defined. Among other things, this bill would require a developer of a covered ADS to conduct performance evaluations of the ADS, require a deployer to provide certain disclosures to a subject of a consequential decision made or facilitated by the ADS, provide the subject an opportunity to opt out of the use of the ADS, provide the subject with an opportunity to appeal the outcome of the consequential decision, and submit the covered ADS to third-party audits, as prescribed. The bill is currently pending in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
• AB 1221 (Bryan) would require an employer, at least 30 days before introducing a workplace surveillance tool, as defined, to provide a worker who will be affected with a written notice that includes, among other things, a description of the data to be collected, the intended purpose, and how this form of worker surveillance is necessary to meet that purpose. The bill would prohibit an employer from using certain workplace surveillance tools, including one that incorporates facial, gait, or emotion recognition technology. The bill would require the Labor Commissioner to enforce these provisions, authorize an employee to bring a civil action for violations, and authorize a public prosecutor to enforce the provisions. The bill is currently pending in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
• AB 1331 (Elhawary) would limit the use of workplace surveillance tools, as defined, by employers, including by prohibiting an employer from monitoring or surveilling workers in private, off-duty areas, as specified, and requiring workplace surveillance tools to be disabled during off-duty hours, as specified, and subjects violators to specified penalties. The bill is currently pending in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
• AB 2885 (Bauer-Kahan, Chapter 843, Statutes of 2024) established a uniform definition for "artificial intelligence," "automated decision system," and "high-risk automated decision system" in California law.
• AB 2930 (Bauer-Kahan, 2024) would have regulated the use of ADSs in order to prevent "algorithmic discrimination." This includes requirements on developers and deployers that make and use these tools to make "consequential decisions" to perform impact assessments on ADSs. This bill establishes the right of individuals to know when an ADS is being used, the right to opt out of its use, and an explanation of how it is used. The bill died on the Senate inactive file.
• SB 1446 (Smallwood-Cuevas, 2024) would have prohibited a grocery or retail drug establishment from providing a self-service checkout option for customers unless specified conditions are met. SB 1446 also included a requirement that a grocery retail store or retail drug establishment that intended to implement a consequential workplace technology, as defined, must notify workers, their collective bargaining representatives, and the public at least 60 days in advance of the implementation of the technology with a general description of the technology and the intended purpose of the technology, as specified. SB 1446 also included remedies and penalties for a violation of the bill's provisions, including a civil penalty of $100 for each day in violation, not to exceed an aggregate penalty of $10,000. The bill was held in the Assembly Rules Committee.

-- END --

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE

Senator Thomas Umberg, Chair

2025-2026 Regular Session

Bill No: SB 238 (Author:Smallwood-Cuevas)

Version: March 26, 2025

Hearing Date: April 29, 2025

Fiscal: Yes

Urgency: No

Consultant: CK

SUBJECT

Workplace surveillance tools

DIGEST

This bill requires employers to provide the Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) an annual notice on all workplace surveillance tools being used in the workplace along with specified details regarding them, such as who makes them, what information they collect, and who will have access to that data. DIR is required to publicly post these notices on their website.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Workplace surveillance technology has expanded dramatically in recent years, evolving from basic security cameras and badge access systems to sophisticated digital monitoring tools that track virtually every aspect of employee activity. These tools may provide benefits to employers in the form of increased productivity and security. However, they raise serious concerns about their impact on privacy and worker organizing; the psychological effects on workers; and when decisions are based on automated performance metrics, issues of algorithmic bias and unfairness.

This bill does not limit the use of these tools or even place parameters on them. Rather, it ensures a level of transparency into the increasing use of these workplace surveillance tools by requiring employers to annually notify DIR of what tools they are deploying along with accompanying information such as who the tools will affect, the data that will be collected, and who will have access to the data collected.

This bill is author-sponsored. It is supported by the California Federation of Labor Unions and the California Association of Psychiatric Technicians. It is opposed by a large coalition of industry groups, including the California Retailers Association and the California Chamber of Commerce. This bill passed out of the Senate Labor, Public Employment and Retirement Committee on a vote of 4 to 1.

PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE LAW

Existing law:

1. Provides, pursuant to the California Constitution, that all people have inalienable rights, including the right to pursue and obtain privacy. (Cal. Const., art. I, § 1.)
2. Establishes the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), which grants consumers certain rights with regard to their personal information, including enhanced notice, access, and disclosure; the right to deletion; the right to restrict the sale of information; and protection from discrimination for exercising these rights. It places attendant obligations on businesses to respect those rights. (Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq.)
3. Establishes the California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA), which amends the CCPA. (Civ. Code § 798.100 et seq.; Proposition 24 (2020).)
4. Provides consumers the right to request that a business delete any personal information about the consumer which the business has collected from the consumer. (Civ. Code § 1798.105(a).)
5. Requires a business that collects a consumer’s personal information to, at or before the point of collection, inform consumers of the following:
   1. the categories of personal information to be collected and the purposes for which the categories of personal information are collected or used and whether that information is sold or shared. A business shall not collect additional categories of personal information or use personal information collected for additional purposes that are incompatible with the disclosed purpose for which the personal information was collected without providing the consumer with notice consistent with this section;
   2. if the business collects sensitive personal information, the categories of sensitive personal information to be collected and the purposes for which the categories of sensitive personal information are collected or used, and whether that information is sold or shared. A business shall not collect additional categories of sensitive personal information or use sensitive personal information collected for additional purposes that are incompatible with the disclosed purpose for which the sensitive personal information was collected without providing the consumer with notice consistent with this section; and
   3. the length of time the business intends to retain each category of personal information, including sensitive personal information, or if that is not possible, the criteria used to determine that period, provided that a business shall not retain a consumer’s personal information or sensitive personal information for each disclosed purpose for which the personal information was collected for longer than is reasonably necessary for that disclosed purpose. (Civ. Code § 1798.100(a).)
6. Grants a consumer the right to request that a business that collects personal information about the consumer disclose to the consumer the following:
   1. the categories of personal information it has collected about that consumer;
   2. the categories of sources from which the personal information is collected;
   3. the business or commercial purpose for collecting, selling, or sharing personal information;
   4. the categories of third parties with whom the business shares personal information; and
   5. the specific pieces of personal information it has collected about that consumer. (Civ. Code § 1798.110.)
7. Provides consumers the right to request that a business that sells or shares the consumer’s personal information, or that discloses it for a business purpose, disclose to the consumer specified information, including the categories of personal information collected, shared, sold, and disclosed and the categories of third parties receiving the information. (Civ. Code § 1798.115.)
8. Provides a consumer the right, at any time, to direct a business that sells or shares personal information about the consumer to third parties not to sell or share the consumer’s personal information. It requires such a business to provide notice to consumers, as specified, that this information may be sold or shared and that consumers have the right to opt out of the sale or sharing of their personal information. (Civ. Code § 1798.120.)
9. Defines “personal information” as information that identifies, relates to, describes, is reasonably capable of being associated with, or could reasonably be linked, directly or indirectly, with a particular consumer or household. The CCPA provides a nonexclusive series of categories of information deemed to be personal information, including biometric information, geolocation data, and “sensitive personal information.” It does not include publicly available information or lawfully obtained, truthful information that is a matter of public concern. (Civ. Code § 1798.140(v).)
10. Extends additional protections to “sensitive personal information,” which is defined as personal information that reveals particularly sensitive information. (Civ. Code § 1798.140(ae).)
11. Provides various exemptions from the obligations imposed by the CCPA, including where they would restrict a business’ ability to comply with federal, state, or local laws. (Civ. Code § 1798.145.)

This bill:

1. Requires an employer to annually provide a notice to DIR of all workplace surveillance tools the employer is using in the workplace. If it began using a workplace surveillance tool before January 1, 2026, the employer shall provide the notice before February 1, 2026. DIR shall make the notice publicly available on its website within 30 days of receiving the notice from the employer.
2. Requires the notice shall contain all of the following information:
   1. The individuals, vendors, and entities that created the workplace surveillance tool and the individuals, vendors, and entities that will run, manage, or interpret the worker data gathered by the workplace surveillance tool.
   2. The name of the model and a description of the technological capabilities of the workplace surveillance tool.
   3. Any significant updates or changes made to the workplace surveillance tool that are already in use or any changes on how the employer is using the existing workplace surveillance tool.
   4. Whether the workplace surveillance tool will affect consumers or other individuals in addition to workers.
   5. The data that will be collected from workers or consumers by the workplace surveillance tool and whether they will have the option to opt out of personal data collection.
   6. A list of all entities and individuals other than the employer that will have access to the data collected from workers and consumers.
   7. Whether the employer has disclosed the use of the workplace surveillance tool with the affected workers and consumers.
3. Defines the relevant terms, including:
   1. “Worker” means a natural person or that person’s authorized representative acting as a job applicant to, an employee of, or an independent contractor providing service to, or through, a business or a state or local governmental entity in a workplace.
   2. “Workplace surveillance tool” means any system, application, instrument, or device that collects or facilitates the collection of worker data, activities, communications, actions, biometrics, or behaviors, or those of the public, by means other than direct observation by a person, including, but not limited to, video or audio surveillance, continuous incremental time-tracking tools, geolocation, electromagnetic tracking, photoelectronic tracking, or use of a photo-optical system or other means.
   3. “Employer” means a person who directly or indirectly, or through an agent or any other person, employs or exercises control over the wages, benefits, other compensation, hours, working conditions, access to work or job opportunities, or other terms or conditions of employment, of any worker. This shall include all branches of state government, or the several counties, cities and counties, and municipalities thereof, or any other political subdivision of the state, or a school district, or any special district, or any authority, commission, or board or any other agency or instrumentality thereof. This includes an employer’s labor contractor.

COMMENTS

1. The rising deployment of workplace surveillance tools

Workplace surveillance tools are technologies used by employers to monitor and evaluate things such as workflow and employee activities and performance. Common examples include keystroke logging software, which tracks keyboard activity to gauge productivity, and screen monitoring tools that capture screenshots or live feeds of employee screens. Email and communication monitoring systems are also widely used to scan messages for sensitive information or inappropriate content. GPS tracking is used to monitor employees’ location and movement, both in the field and in factories and other workplaces. Additionally, video surveillance cameras in offices or warehouses can monitor physical behavior and security. In recent years, some employers are even requiring workers to wear tracking tools that monitor not only location and movement, but biometric information. These tools aim to enhance productivity and security but often raise serious concerns about privacy and trust, especially as their incidence rapidly expands.

Research out of Cornell University identifies this trend and questions just how useful these tools are for accomplishing employers goals:

Organizations using AI to monitor employees’ behavior and productivity can expect them to complain more, be less productive and want to quit more – unless the technology can be framed as supporting their development, Cornell research finds.

Surveillance tools, which are increasingly being used to track and analyze physical activity, facial expressions, vocal tone and verbal and written communication, cause people to feel a greater loss of autonomy than oversight by humans, according to the research.

Businesses and other organizations using the fast-changing technologies to evaluate whether people are slacking off, treating customers well or potentially engaging in cheating or other wrongdoing should consider their unintended consequences, which may prompt resistance and hurt performance, the researchers say. They also suggest an opportunity to win buy-in, if the subjects of surveillance feel the tools are there to assist rather than judge their performance – assessments they fear will lack context and accuracy.

“When artificial intelligence and other advanced technologies are implemented for developmental purposes, people like that they can learn from it and improve their performance,” said Emily Zitek, associate professor of organizational behavior in the ILR School. “The problem occurs when they feel like an evaluation is happening automatically, straight from the data, and they’re not able to contextualize it in any way.” . . .

Algorithmic surveillance has already induced backlash. In 2020, an investment bank swiftly dropped a pilot program testing productivity software to monitor employee activity, including alerting them if they took too many breaks.^[1]

The federal Government Accountability Office (GAO) developed a report assessing the use of workplace surveillance tools and their effects. Some of their takeaways are:

• Worsens mental health: Constant surveillance can amplify workers’ stress and anxiety levels, making them feel like they’re under a microscope. The sheer act of surveillance can contribute to workers’ feeling less confident or enthusiastic about their jobs. Workers increasingly reported feeling that they cannot voice concerns or share suggestions out of fear that their digital footprint will bite back. When the work environment makes workers feel scrutinized, it may very well foster a culture of distrust. For example, a call center worker said that surveillance tools have resulted in an unrelenting push to improve sales. They said, “The pressure to sell and the various ways that managers can monitor me creates an enormous amount of stress.”
• Discourages unionization: Being perpetually watched can also eat away at a workers’ sense of autonomy and privacy. Consequently, some workers feel it discourages workplace solidarity and unionization efforts. When workers fear their every move is being tracked, organizing for better conditions feels risky—undermining solidarity and weakening workplace morale.
• Potential to create discrimination: Workers’ advocates and researchers worry about the potential for digital surveillance to create bias or discrimination. Some worry that AI-driven performance metrics might unfairly target certain groups. For instance, those who take longer to complete tasks due to disability or other factors. This could magnify existing disability, racial, or gender inequalities in the workplace.^[2]

1. Ensuring some transparency regarding workplace surveillance

This bill takes a measured approach to the issue by simply requiring more transparency around the use of these workplace surveillance tools, rather than banning them or otherwise limiting their use.

The bill complements existing privacy laws by requiring employers to provide notice to DIR when they are deploying workplace surveillance tools, defined as any system, application, instrument, or device that collects or facilitates the collection of worker data, activities, communications, actions, biometrics, or behaviors, or those of the public, by means other than direct observation by a person, including, but not limited to, video or audio surveillance, continuous incremental time-tracking tools, geolocation, electromagnetic tracking, photoelectronic tracking, or use of a photo-optical system or other means.

The notice must include details regarding the tools, such as the model name, who makes them, and what their capabilities are. Employers must further disclose any significant updates or changes to the tools or how they are used.

To further appreciate the reach and oversight of workplace surveillance, employers must include details about what data is being collected by the tools, who manages and interprets that information, and who will have access to the information on both workers and consumers, if applicable. The notice must state who will be affected outside of workers, such as consumers entering the workplace. Employers must indicate whether they disclose the use of these tools to those affected and whether workers are given the opportunity to opt out of personal information collection. These details are important given the potential encroachment on workers’ privacy rights.

The bill requires the notice to identify “any significant updates or changes made to the workplace surveillance tool.” This term is undefined and to address concerns this may lead to overly burdensome disclosure requirements for employers, the author has agreed to an amendment that provides the following definition: “’Significant updates or changes’ means changes that materially alter the function or scope of the surveillance tool, including new forms of data collection, analysis capabilities, or new third-party access. Routine maintenance or changes that do not affect the tool’s functionality or data use are not considered significant.” To this same end, the author has agreed to amendments that carve out certain tools, such as spam filters, antivirus software, and server uptime monitors.

To ensure full disclosure, DIR is required to make these notices publicly available.

According to the author:

SB 238 ensures transparency and accountability in using workplace surveillance tools and artificial intelligence by requiring employers to disclose what technologies they use, what data is collected, and who has access to that data. As AI increasingly shapes employment decisions without workers’ knowledge, this bill provides a critical baseline for public oversight and worker empowerment. By making this information publicly accessible, SB 238 promotes fairness, privacy, and informed consent in the workplace, particularly for communities disproportionately impacted by surveillance and algorithmic bias.

There is some concern about requiring the employers to identify individuals who created the tools used. This could be interpreted to mean employees of the company developing the product. This seems somewhat unnecessary and perhaps its own invasion of a worker’s privacy. The author may wish to consider more narrowly tailoring this provision.

In addition, the definition of “data” in the bill closely mirrors the definition of “personal information” in the CCPA and other statutes. The author has agreed to amendments that replace “data” with the term “personal information” to avoid confusion.

1. Stakeholder positions

The California Federation of Labor Unions writes in support:

Workplace surveillance is not a new phenomenon, however, the tools currently available to employers are far more powerful and invasive than a simple camera or microphone. Employers now have access to seemingly military grade surveillance technology that can track heat signatures, biometrics, and walking patterns. A recent study published by coworker.org reported over 500 surveillance and management tools currently being sold to employers to track worker activities, interactions, and body movements. These tools are widely available and surprisingly affordable. Workers live in a constant state of surveillance and are often unaware they are even being watched.

SB 238 seeks to increase transparency in the workplace by requiring employers to disclose their use of workplace surveillance tools to the Department of Industrial Relations. Transparency is essential to foster public trust and a safe working environment.

A coalition of industry groups, including the California Chamber of Commerce, writes in opposition:

The breadth of information that SB 238 requires to be reported to DIR and made publicly available online is concerning to many of our members. The definition of workplace surveillance tools in the bill is very broad and encompasses many tools that are standard and basic components of a security program on an employer’s premises or cybersecurity software. Video surveillance, communications/equipment tracking, and cybersecurity software are especially necessary for workplace safety as well as the prevention and investigation of fraud and theft. For example, financial institutions must have highly sophisticated security systems, otherwise there is risk of theft or exposure of sensitive consumer information. They would be required to disclose exactly which tools they use, the names of individuals and vendors that run or receive any of that data, and what changes have been made to those systems. This is essentially requiring those institutions to provide a roadmap for bad actors to gain a better understanding of the tools they are using for fraud prevention and security measures and how to exploit them. The bill could put many entities, and more importantly their employees and consumers, in a vulnerable position by exposing exactly what tools are being used and how they are being used, who has access to sensitive worker and consumer data, and the extent of data that is being collected. This is especially true for employers with sensitive consumer data or government data where companies have state or federal contracts.

SUPPORT

California Association of Psychiatric Technicians
California Federation of Labor Unions, AFL-CIO

OPPOSITION

Acclamation Insurance Management Services

Allied Managed Care

American Petroleum and Convenience Store Association

Associated General Contractors of California

California Alliance of Family Owned Businesses

California Apartment Association

California Association of Sheet Metal and Air Conditioning Contractors National Association

California Association of Winegrape Growers

California Attractions and Parks Association

California Beer and Beverage Distributors

California Chamber of Commerce

California Credit Union League

California Farm Bureau

California Grocers Association

California Hospital Association

California League of Food Producers

California Retailers Association

Coalition of Small and Disabled Veteran Businesses

Flasher Barricade Association

Housing Contractors of California

Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce

Security Industry Association

Wine Institute

RELATED LEGISLATION

Pending Legislation: SB 7 (McNerney, 2025) regulates the use of automated decision systems (ADS ) in the employment context by requiring employers and their vendors to provide pre- and post-use notices that inform workers, including applicants, that they are subject to ADS and of the ADS details. It establishes a series of prohibited uses. Workers have the right to access information used by the ADS, to correct that information, and to appeal any decision made by ADS. SB 7 is being heard by this Committee the same day as this bill.

Prior Legislation: AB 302 (Ward, Ch. 800, Stats. 2023) required CDT, on or before September 1, 2024, to conduct a comprehensive inventory of all high-risk ADS that have been proposed for use, development, or procurement by, or are being used, developed, or procured by, any state agency.

PRIOR VOTES:

Senate Labor, Public Employment and Retirement Committee (Ayes 4, Noes 1)

**************

1. James Dean, More complaints, worse performance when AI monitors work (July 2, 2024) Cornell Chronicle, https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2024/07/more-complaints-worse-performance-when-ai-monitors-work?utm_source=chatgpt.com. All internet citations current as of April 19, 2025. ↑

2. 'Why do I feel like somebody’s watching me?' Workplace Surveillance Can Impact More Than Just Productivity (October 29, 2024) GAO, https://www.gao.gov/blog/why-do-i-feel-somebodys-watching-me-workplace-surveillance-can-impact-more-just-productivity. ↑

SENATE COMMITTEE ON LABOR, PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT AND RETIREMENT

Senator Lola Smallwood-Cuevas, Chair

2025 - 2026 Regular

Bill No: SB 238 Hearing Date: April 23, 2025

SUBJECT: Workplace surveillance tools

KEY ISSUES

This bill requires an employer to annually provide a notice, containing specified information, to the Department of Industrial Relations (DIR), of all workplace surveillance tools the employer is using in the workplace. DIR is then required to make the employer-provided notice publicly available on the Department’s internet website.

ANALYSIS

Existing law:

1. Establishes the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), which grants consumers certain rights with regard to their personal information, including enhanced notice, access, and disclosure; the right to deletion; the right to restrict the sale of information; and protection from discrimination for exercising these rights. It places attendant obligations on businesses to respect those rights. (Civil Code §1798.100 et seq.)
2. Establishes the Consumer Privacy Rights Act (CPRA), which amends the CCPA and creates the California Privacy Protection Agency (PPA), which is charged with implementing these privacy laws, promulgating regulations, and carrying out enforcement actions. (Civil Code §1798.100 et seq.; Proposition 24 (2020))
3. Defines “artificial intelligence” to mean an engineered or machine-based system that varies in its level of autonomy and that can, for explicit or implicit objectives, infer from the input it receives how to generate outputs that can influence physical or virtual environments. (Government Code §11546.45.5)
4. Establishes the Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) in the Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA), and vests it with various powers and duties to foster, promote, and develop the welfare of the wage earners of California, to improve their working conditions, and to advance their opportunities for profitable employment. (Labor Code §50.5)
5. Requires employers to provide to each employee, upon hire, a written description of each quota to which the employee is subject, including the quantified number of tasks to be performed or materials to be produced or handled, within the defined time period, and any potential adverse employment action that could result from failure to meet the quota. (Labor Code §2101)
6. Prohibits an employer from requiring an employee to meet a quota that prevents compliance with meal or rest periods, use of bathroom facilities, including reasonable travel time to and from bathroom facilities, or occupational health and safety laws in the Labor Code or division standards. (Labor Code §2101)
7. Prohibits an employer from taking adverse employment actions against an employee for failure to meet a quota that does not allow a worker to comply with meal and rest periods, or occupational health and safety laws in the Labor Code or division standards, or for failure to meet a quota that has not been disclosed to the employee. (Labor Code §2101)

This bill:

1. Defines, among others, the following terms:
   1. “Data” to mean any information that identifies, relates to, describes, is reasonably capable of being associated with, or could reasonably be linked, directly or indirectly, with a worker, regardless of how the information is collected, inferred, or obtained.
   2. “Employer” means a person who directly or indirectly, or through an agent or any other person, employs or exercises control over the wages, benefits, other compensation, hours, working conditions, access to work or job opportunities, or other terms or conditions of employment, of any worker. This shall include all branches of state government, or the several counties, cities and counties, and municipalities thereof, or any other political subdivision of the state, or a school district, or any special district, or any authority, commission, or board or any other agency or instrumentality thereof.
      1. “Employer” includes an employer’s labor contractor.
   3. “Worker” means a natural person or that person’s authorized representative acting as a job applicant to, an employee of, or an independent contractor providing service to, or through, a business or a state or local governmental entity in a workplace.
   4. “Workplace surveillance tool” means any system, application, instrument, or device that collects or facilitates the collection of worker data, activities, communications, actions, biometrics, or behaviors, or those of the public, by means other than direct observation by a person, including, but not limited to, video or audio surveillance, continuous incremental time-tracking tools, geolocation, electromagnetic tracking, photoelectronic tracking, or use of a photo-optical system or other means.
2. Requires an employer to annually provide a notice to DIR of all workplace surveillance tools the employer is using in the workplace.
3. For an employer that began using a workplace surveillance tool before January 1, 2026, requires the employer to provide the notice before February 1, 2026.
4. Requires the notice to contain all of the following information:
   1. The individuals, vendors, and entities that created the workplace surveillance tool and the individuals, vendors, and entities that will run, manage, or interpret the worker data gathered by the workplace surveillance tool.
   2. The name of the model and a description of the technological capabilities of the workplace surveillance tool.
   3. Any significant updates or changes made to the workplace surveillance tool that are already in use or any changes on how the employer is using the existing workplace surveillance tool.
   4. Whether the workplace surveillance tool will affect consumers or other individuals in addition to workers.
   5. The data that will be collected from workers or consumers by the workplace surveillance tool and whether they will have the option to opt out of personal data collection.
   6. A list of all entities and individuals other than the employer that will have access to the data collected from workers and consumers.
   7. Whether the employer has disclosed the use of the workplace surveillance tool with the affected workers and consumers.
5. Requires DIR to make the employer provided notice publicly available on the department’s internet website within 30 days of receiving the notice from the employer.

COMMENTS

1. Background:

Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Automated Decision Systems (ADS)

With technological advancements happening faster than humans can react, we often miss opportunities to pause and evaluate its impact. Until recently, advancements in technology often automated physical tasks, such as those performed on factory floors or self-checkouts, but artificial intelligence (AI) functions more like human brainpower. AI can use algorithms to accomplish tasks faster and sometimes at a lower cost than human workers can. As this technology develops, so do fears of worker displacement in more areas and industries.

According to the Pew Research Center, in 2022, 19 percent of American workers were in jobs in which the most important activities may be either replaced or assisted by AI.^[1] Because technology can be used to either replace or complement the work of employees, it is difficult to identify which industries or occupations will be most impacted. What’s worse, recent trends on the use of AI in employment has been reminiscent of a Hollywood movie – both fantastical and horrifying.

Bill Gates himself has warned that over the next decade, advances in artificial intelligence will mean that humans will no longer be needed “for most things” in the world.^[2] Given these realities, what does the future of AI and its capabilities mean for workers? As we speak, employers are deploying AI-powered tools that monitor and manage workers, including by tracking their locations, activities, and productivity. Even more alarmingly, we are seeing employers use AI powered systems to make decisions on workers’ schedules, tasks, compensation, promotions, and even disciplinary actions.

In February of 2019, Data & Society, an independent non-profit research institute, published a study evaluating the impact of algorithmic management on the workforce. The study highlights several examples where algorithmic management is becoming more common. In the delivery industry, companies from UPS to Amazon to grocery chains are using automated systems to optimize delivery workers’ daily routes. In other industries, trends show an increase in remote tracking and managing using AI software. In retail and service jobs, automated scheduling is replacing managers’ discretion over employee schedules, while the work of evaluating employees is being transferred to consumer-sourced rating systems.^[3]

At least, these examples appear to complement the tasks of workers. Below are several other examples highlighted in a 2021 UC Berkeley study that should make us pause^[4]:

• Hiring software by the company HireVue generates scores of job applicants based on their tone of voice and word choices captured during video interviews.
• Algorithms are being used to predict whether workers will quit, become pregnant, or try to organize a union, which influence employers’ decisions about job assignment and promotion.
• Call center technologies are analyzing customer calls and nudging workers in real time to adjust their behavior, like coaching them to express more empathy, pace the call more efficiently, or exude more confidence and professionalism.
• Grocery platforms like Instacart are monitoring workers and calculating metrics on their speed as they fill shopping lists.
• Robots, like, for example, “smart cart” service robots in health care, are being used to transport materials (e.g., linens, meals, lab specimens) to other workers. Meanwhile, floor cleaning robots vacuum or scrub floors along a preset route programmed by workers, who also monitor and support their operation.
• In remote workers’ homes, AI software is being used to track computer keystrokes.

Specifically around surveillance, AI surveillance involves the use of computer software and algorithms to analyze video footage that goes beyond motion detection. AI surveillance tools are being used to monitor areas through video, satellite or even drones. These tools can allow the systems to see and interpret information, from tracking movements in real-time to analyzing and predicting behavior. A system installed in a secure facility, for example, could use computer vision to identify unauthorized individuals, track movements within restricted areas, and detect any unusual behavior that might indicate a security breach.

The growing use of these AI tools raises several questions:

• Can AI tools ensure worker safety or do they push workers to work at a dangerous pace?
• Should workers know about AI powered tools monitoring their work?
• Do these AI tools protect against bias and discrimination?
• Should these AI tools be allowed to manage and fire a worker?
• Who should monitor and evaluate AI decisions and how?
• Do our current regulatory and legal structures protect workers exposed to decisions made by AI tools?
• How much should government regulate the use of these tools?

Now is the time to ensure that as AI enters our workforce, it is used to complement the tasks of a worker – rather than replacing them – without sacrificing worker safety, living wages, and protections against discrimination and abuse.

As noted in the UC Berkeley report:

“Technology is not inherently bad, but neither is it neutral: the role of workplace regulation is to ensure that technologies serve and respond to workers’ interests and to prevent negative impacts. Regulation is all the more important because employers themselves often do not understand the systems they are using. What we need, then, is a new set of 21^st century labor standards establishing worker rights and employer responsibilities for the data-driven workplace.”^[5]

Recent Efforts to Regulate AI and ADSs

In November of 2020, California voters approved Proposition 24, the California Privacy Rights Act of 2020 (CPRA). The CPRA added new privacy protections to the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (CCPA). The CPRA established a new agency, the California Privacy Protection Agency (CPPA) to implement and enforce the law. The mission of the CPPA is to protect Californians’ privacy, ensure that consumers are aware of their rights, inform businesses of their obligations, and vigorously enforce the law against businesses that violate consumers’ privacy rights.

Over the last several years, the Legislature has considered a multitude of bills aimed at regulating AI and its use to ensure that the privacy rights of Californians continue to be protected. AB 2885 (Bauer-Kahan, Chapter 843, Statutes of 2024) was a crucial first step in regulating this technology. AB 2885 established key definitions, including a uniform definition for “artificial intelligence,” “automated decision system,” and “high-risk automated decision system.”

Other efforts attempted to regulate the industry by establishing requirements on the use of AI. For example, AB 2930 (Bauer-Kahan, 2024), which died on the Senate inactive file, would have established the right of individuals to know when an ADS is being used, the right to opt out of its use, and an explanation of how it is used.

There were several other attempts to regulate the use of AI in 2024, although the focus has mostly been on consumers and their privacy rights, whether it be the data social media companies collect and sell or the manipulation of elections news via fake postings. In the area of private sector labor and employment specifically, only one bill has attempted to regulate the use of AI.

SB 1446 (Smallwood-Cuevas, 2024) attempted to address the issue by requiring, among other things, that a grocery retail store or retail drug establishment that intended to implement a consequential workplace technology, as defined, notify workers, their collective bargaining representatives, and the public at least 60 days in advance of the implementation of the technology with a general description of the technology and the intended purpose of the technology, as specified. SB 1446 was held in the Assembly Rules Committee.

This year, there are several bills in the labor and employment space attempting to regulate the use of AI powered tools from decision making systems to surveillance.

SB 7 (McNerney), previously heard and passed by this Committee, would be the first attempt at regulating the use of ADS in the workplace in such a comprehensive way. Several other bills regulating AI are pending this year, including AB 1018 (Bauer-Kahan, 2025) which would, among other things, regulate the development and deployment of an ADS used to make consequential decisions, as defined.

AB 1221 (Bryan, 2025) would require an employer, at least 30 days before introducing a workplace surveillance tool, as defined, to provide a worker who will be affected with a written notice that includes, among other things, a description of the worker data to be collected, the intended purpose of the workplace surveillance tool, and how this form of worker surveillance is necessary to meet that purpose. Additionally, the bill would prohibit an employer from using certain workplace surveillance tools, including a workplace surveillance tool that incorporates facial, gait, or emotion recognition technology.

Finally, AB 1331 (Elhawary, 2025) would limit the use of workplace surveillance tools, as defined, by employers, including by prohibiting an employer from monitoring or surveilling workers in private, off-duty areas, as specified, and requiring workplace surveillance tools to be disabled during off-duty hours, as specified.

This bill [SB 238] compliments the above efforts by requiring employers to provide notice on the use of workplace surveillance tools to DIR and requires the Department to post such notices on its internet website.

2. Need for this bill?

According to the author:

“Current law currently lacks transparency and regulatory oversight over the use of artificial intelligence (AI) and workplace surveillance tools by employers. Although the Department of Industrial Relations administers and enforces laws related to employment and working conditions, no existing statute mandates that employers disclose what surveillance technologies they use, what data they collect, or who can access it.

This creates several key problems:

• Workers are unaware of the extent and nature of data collection that may affect their privacy, autonomy, or job opportunities
• There is no centralized oversight or reporting mechanism that enables the state or public to evaluate how surveillance technology is being used
• Potential harms, such as algorithmic bias, discrimination, or misuse of data by third parties, remain unaddressed under current law.

SB 238 aims to address the deficiency by introducing transparency and public accountability measures. The bill is intended to protect worker privacy and ensuring ethical use of AI in employment settings by making surveillance practice visible to both regulators and the public.”

3. Proponent Arguments:

According to the California Federation of Labor Unions:

“Workplace surveillance is not a new phenomenon, however, the tools currently available to employers are far more powerful and invasive than a simple camera or microphone. Employers now have access to seemingly military grade surveillance technology that can track heat signatures, biometrics, and walking patterns. A recent study published by coworker.org reported over 500 surveillance and management tools currently being sold to employers to track worker activities, interactions, and body movements. These tools are widely available and surprisingly affordable. Workers live in a constant state of surveillance and are often unaware they are even being watched.

SB 238 seeks to increase transparency in the workplace by requiring employers to disclose their use of workplace surveillance tools to the Department of Industrial Relations. Transparency is essential to foster public trust and a safe working environment.”

4. Opponent Arguments:

According to a coalition of employer organizations, including the California Chamber of Commerce:

“The breadth of information that SB 238 requires to be reported to DIR and made publicly available online is concerning to many of our members. The definition of workplace surveillance tools in the bill is very broad and encompasses many tools that are standard and basic components of a security program on an employer’s premises or cybersecurity software. Video surveillance, communications/equipment tracking, and cybersecurity software are especially necessary for workplace safety as well as the prevention and investigation of fraud and theft. For example, financial institutions must have highly sophisticated security systems, otherwise there is risk of theft or exposure of sensitive consumer information. They would be required to disclose exactly which tools they use, the names of individuals and vendors that run or receive any of that data, and what changes have been made to those systems. This is essentially requiring those institutions to provide a roadmap for bad actors to gain a better understanding of the tools they are using for fraud prevention and security measures and how to exploit them. The bill could put many entities, and more importantly their employees and consumers, in a vulnerable position by exposing exactly what tools are being used and how they are being used, who has access to sensitive worker and consumer data, and the extent of data that is being collected. This is especially true for employers with sensitive consumer data or government data where companies have state or federal contracts.

Further, SB 238 would impose a significant workload on an already overburdened DIR. For example, California has more than 1.7 million private sector businesses and an additional 3 million sole proprietorships. Because of the breadth of the definition of “workplace surveillance tools,” even a security camera or server that stores emails would count under that definition, meaning that DIR would be required to sift through, label, and publish lists of millions of different tools. Not only is that burdensome, but it is difficult to imagine how such an information overload is useful to the public.”

5. Staff Comments:

As noted above, AI is being used in new ways not previously contemplated in current law. This bill attempts to provide transparency on what and how these technologies are being used in the workplace. These notices will provide much needed information to inform the state and the workers about tools being used by employers, which will assist in future policymaking around the use of such surveillance tools.

As conversations on this bill continue, the author may wish to consider the following:

The bill defines “worker” to mean a natural person or that person’s authorized representative acting as a job applicant to, an employee of, or an independent contractor providing service to, or through, a business or a state or local governmental entity in a workplace. This definition is not clear as to who the authorized representative is and why they would be acting as a job applicant to an employee. The author may wish to refine this definition to better capture the targeted population.

Regarding the information required to be included in the notices, the bill requires it include the individuals, vendors, and entities that created the workplace surveillance tool and the individuals, vendors, and entities that will run, manage, or interpret the worker data gathered by the workplace surveillance tool. Should employers be required to include this kind of detail – especially when the employer may simply be buying a software program or contracting for a service, but they may not know which individuals specifically created the workplace surveillance tool?

The bill requires employers to annually provide the notice on the workplace surveillance tools they are using to DIR, and requires DIR to make that notice available to the public on their internet website within 30 days. The bill does not specify what happens to the notices after the year. The author may wish to provide further clarity on how long DIR has to keep those notices posted or if they are replaced each year by the new notices submitted.

6. Double Referral:

This bill has been double referred and if approved by this Committee today, will be sent to Senate Judiciary Committee for a hearing.

7. Prior/Related Legislation:

SB 7 (McNerney, 2025) would, among other things, require an employer to provide a written notice that an ADS, for the purpose of making employment-related decisions, is in use at the workplace to all workers that will be directly or indirectly affected by the ADS, as specified. SB 7 is pending in Senate Judiciary Committee.

SB 53 (Wiener, 2025) would establish a consortium tasked with developing a framework for a public cloud computing cluster that advances the ethical development and deployment of AI that is safe, ethical, equitable, and sustainable. This bill would also create protections for whistleblowers working with specified AI models when reporting on “critical risks” and would require developers to provide processes for anonymous reporting of activities posing such risks. SB 53 is pending in the Senate Appropriations Committee.

SB 503 (Weber Pierson, 2025) would require the Department of Health Care Access and Information and the Department of Technology to establish an advisory board related to the use of AI in health care services. Specifically, the bill would require the advisory board to perform specified duties, including, but not limited to, developing a standardized testing system with criteria for developers to test AI models or AI systems for biased impacts. SB 503 is pending in the Senate Rules Committee.

AB 1018 (Bauer-Kahan, 2025) would, among other things, regulate the development and deployment of an ADS used to make consequential decisions, as defined. Among other things, this bill would require a developer of a covered ADS to conduct performance evaluations of the ADS, require a deployer to provide certain disclosures to a subject of a consequential decision made or facilitated by the ADS, provide the subject an opportunity to opt out of the use of the ADS, provide the subject with an opportunity to appeal the outcome of the consequential decision, and submit the covered ADS to third-party audits, as prescribed. AB 1018 is pending in the Assembly Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee.

AB 1221 (Bryan, 2025) would require an employer, at least 30 days before introducing a workplace surveillance tool, as defined, to provide a worker who will be affected with a written notice that includes, among other things, a description of the data to be collected, the intended purpose, and how this form of worker surveillance is necessary to meet that purpose. The bill would prohibit an employer from using certain workplace surveillance tools, including one that incorporates facial, gait, or emotion recognition technology. The bill would require the Labor Commissioner to enforce these provisions, authorize an employee to bring a civil action for violations, and authorize a public prosecutor to enforce the provisions. AB 1221 is pending in the Assembly Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee.

AB 1331 (Elhawary, 2025) would limit the use of workplace surveillance tools, as defined, by employers, including by prohibiting an employer from monitoring or surveilling workers in private, off-duty areas, as specified, and requiring workplace surveillance tools to be disabled during off-duty hours, as specified, and subjects violators to specified penalties. AB 1331 is pending in the Assembly Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee.

SB 442 (Smallwood-Cuevas, 2025) would prohibit a grocery retail store or retail drug establishment from providing a self-service checkout option for customers unless specified conditions are met, including that at least one manual checkout station be staffed by an employee. This bill includes specified civil penalties for violations of these provisions and authorizes enforcement by the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement and public prosecutors. SB 442 is pending in the Senate Judiciary Committee.

AB 2885 (Bauer-Kahan, Chapter 843, Statutes of 2024) established a uniform definition for “artificial intelligence,” “automated decision system,” and “high-risk automated decision system” in California law.

AB 2930 (Bauer-Kahan, 2024) would have regulated the use of ADSs in order to prevent “algorithmic discrimination.” This would have included requirements on developers and deployers that make and use these tools to make “consequential decisions” to perform impact assessments on ADSs. This bill also sought to establish the right of individuals to know when an ADS is being used, the right to opt out of its use, and an explanation of how it is used. AB 2930 died on the Senate inactive file.

SB 1446 (Smallwood-Cuevas, 2024) would have prohibited a grocery or retail drug establishment from providing a self-service checkout option for customers unless specified conditions are met. SB 1446 also included a requirement that a grocery retail store or retail drug establishment that intended to implement a consequential workplace technology, as defined, must notify workers, their collective bargaining representatives, and the public at least 60 days in advance of the implementation of the technology with a general description of the technology and the intended purpose of the technology, as specified. SB 1446 also included remedies and penalties for a violation of the bill’s provisions, including a civil penalty of $100 for each day in violation, not to exceed an aggregate penalty of $10,000. SB 1446 was held in the Assembly Rules Committee.

Several other bills in 2024 addressed related AI issues including: SB 892 (Padilla), SB 893 (Padilla), SB 896 (Dodd), SB 942 (Becker), SB 1047 (Wiener), and AB 2013 (Irwin).

AB 331 (Bauer-Kahan, 2023) would have prohibited “algorithmic discrimination,” that is, use of an automated decision tool to contribute to unjustified differential treatment or outcomes that may have a significant effect on a person’s life. AB 331 was held under submission in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.

AB 302 (Ward, Chapter 800, Statutes of 2023) required the California Department of Technology (CDT), in coordination with other interagency bodies, to conduct a comprehensive inventory of all high-risk automated decision systems (ADS) used by state agencies on or before September 1, 2024, and report the findings to the Legislature by January 1, 2025, and annually thereafter, as specified.

AB 701 (Gonzalez, Chapter 197, Statutes of 2021) proposed a series of provisions designed to ensure that the use of job performance quotas at large warehouse facilities do not penalize workers for complying with health and safety standards or taking meal and rest breaks. Among other things, this bill (1) required warehouse employers to disclose quotas and pace-of-work standards to workers, (2) prohibited employers from counting time that workers spend complying with health and safety laws as “time off task,” and (3) required the Labor Commissioner to enforce these provisions.

AB 13 (Chau, 2021) would have established the Automated Decision Systems Accountability Act, which would have promoted oversight over ADS that pose a high risk of adverse impacts on individual rights. This bill was eventually gutted and amended to address a different topic.

AB 1576 (Calderon, 2019) would have required the Secretary of Government Operations to appoint participants to an AI working group to evaluate the uses, risks, benefits, and legal implications associated with the development and deployment of AI by California-based businesses. The bill was held under submission in the Senate Appropriations Committee.

SUPPORT

California Association of Psychiatric Technicians

California Federation of Labor Unions, AFL-CIO

Oakland Privacy

OPPOSITION

Acclamation Insurance Management Services

Allied Managed Care

American Petroleum and Convenience Store Association

Associated General Contractors of California

California Alliance of Family Owned Businesses

California Association of Sheet Metal & Air Conditioning Contractors National Association

California Association of Winegrape Growers

California Attractions and Parks Association

California Chamber of Commerce

California Credit Union League

California Grocers Association

California League of Food Producers

California Retailers Association

Coalition of Small and Disabled Veteran Businesses

Flasher Barricade Association

Housing Contractors of California

Wine Institute

-- END --

1. “Which U.S. Workers Are More Exposed to AI on Their Jobs?” Pew Research Center, Washington, D.C. (July 26, 2023) https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2023/07/26/which-u-s-workers-are-more-exposed-to-ai-on-their-jobs/ ↑

2. Huddleston, T. Jr. “Bill Gates: Within 10 years, AI will replace many doctors and teachers – humans won’t be needed ‘for most things.’’(March 26, 2025) https://www.cnbc.com/2025/03/26/bill-gates-on-ai-humans-wont-be-needed-for-most-things.html ↑

3. Alexandra Mateescu, Aiha Nguyen, 2019. Data & Society. “Explainer: Algorithmic Management in the Workplace.” https://datasociety.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/DS_Algorithmic_Management_Explainer.pdf ↑

4. Annette Bernhardt, Lisa Kresge, Reem Suleiman, 2021. UC Berkeley Labor Center. “Data and Algorithms at Work: The Case for Worker Technology Rights.” https://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/data-algorithms-at-work/ ↑

5. Ibid. ↑