California lawmakers passed Assembly Bill 1883 on August 30. The measure would prohibit employers from using AI-driven tools to read workers' emotional states or collect neural data. The bill passed the Assembly 56-8 on its final vote and now sits on Governor Gavin Newsom's desk, with a September 30 deadline for him to act.
If signed, AB 1883 would amend California's Labor Code to bar employers from deploying workplace surveillance tools that recognize or make predictions about an individual's emotional state, or that collect an employee's neural data. Neural data, as the bill defines it, is information generated by measuring the activity of an employee's central or peripheral nervous system.
The legislation applies broadly to what the bill calls "workplace surveillance tools" - any system, application, instrument, or device that collects employee data, activities, communications, actions, biometrics, or behaviors by means other than direct human observation. That definition covers video and audio surveillance, continuous time-tracking tools, geolocation, electromagnetic tracking, and photo-optical systems.
Danielle Ochs, a shareholder at Ogletree Deakins in San Francisco, said the bill comes as employer appetite for AI-driven monitoring tools has grown substantially. "It seems like almost weekly, employers are introduced to new AI-driven workplace tools with ever-expanding capabilities," Ochs told HR Executive. "HR leaders should pay close attention to the rapidly changing legal landscape regulating these tools."
AB 1883 is deliberately narrow. Prior versions of the legislation drew opposition from employers and industry groups concerned that broader language would have inadvertently swept in facial recognition technology, standard security cameras, and AI-powered safety systems. Ochs cited tools used to detect distracted or fatigued driving in commercial vehicles as a specific example of what opponents sought to protect.
The current version was tightened in response to those objections. Employers can continue using monitoring tools for safety and operational purposes, provided those tools do not engage in the prohibited conduct.
The California Labor Commissioner and public prosecutors could enforce the measure. Civil penalties of up to $500 per violation would apply. Ochs noted that the bill's language may leave the door open for representative claims under California's Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA), which allows eligible employees to pursue Labor Code-based penalty claims on behalf of the state.
Newsom's record is context worth noting. He vetoed SB 1047, a broad AI safety bill, in September 2024, on the grounds that it failed to distinguish between AI deployed in high-risk environments and more routine functions.
AB 1883's narrowly scoped prohibitions fit the approach he has favored. Newsom signed 17 other AI-related bills the same year he vetoed SB 1047, and in August signed two bills establishing first-in-the-nation standards for third-party AI audits.
The bill is one piece of a broader regulatory shift that California employers have been navigating across multiple fronts, a pattern explored in our piece on new California laws reshaping compliance expectations for brokers. Any tools an employer currently uses for workforce analytics, productivity management, or employee engagement monitoring that incorporate sentiment detection, affect recognition, or biometric inference would fall within the bill's scope if it is signed.
The EU AI Act, whose ban on AI emotion detection in workplaces and education settings came into force in February 2025, prohibits AI systems intended to detect the emotional state of people in those settings, except when placed on the market for medical or safety reasons.
Employee privacy around AI-powered tools has also emerged as a leading concern among workers. A 2026 Prudential Financial study of 3,096 US employees found privacy and security to be the top stated concern about AI in the workplace, ranked ahead of accuracy and reliability.
The question of what data employer-deployed AI tools collect sits at the center of the conversation between benefits advisers and employer clients on responsible AI adoption. California employers with multi-state workforces should also monitor whether other states move in a similar direction.
