California Enacts Workplace Surveillance Laws AB 1331, AB 1883

California Enacts Two Workplace Surveillance Laws: AB 1331 Bathroom Rule and AB 1883 AI Limits

California's Governor approved two separate workplace surveillance bills on September 30, 2026. AB 1331 (Chapter 851) bars surveillance tools in workplace bathrooms. AB 1883 (Chapter 853) bars AI emotion detection and neural data collection on employees. Both go into effect January 1, 2027.

Information last verified on October 1, 2026.

Status: Both measures are enacted but not yet in force. AB 1331 was approved by the Governor and chaptered by the Secretary of State as Chapter 851, Statutes of 2026, on September 30, 2026. AB 1883 was approved and chaptered as Chapter 853, Statutes of 2026, on the same day. Neither enrolled text contains an urgency section, so under California Constitution article IV, section 8(c)(1) each goes into effect on January 1, 2027.

Jurisdiction scope: This article covers two California acts that regulate what an employer may do to monitor its own employees. It does not cover California's general rules on recording conversations between private parties, which turn on the all-party consent requirement in Penal Code Section 632 and are covered in our guide to California's consent rules for recording conversations.

What Happened

On September 30, 2026, the Governor approved Assembly Bill 1331 and Assembly Bill 1883, and the Secretary of State chaptered each the same day. The Legislature's history log for AB 1331 records "Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 851, Statutes of 2026" on 09/30/26, directly beneath "Approved by the Governor" on the same date. The log for AB 1883 records "Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 853, Statutes of 2026," also on 09/30/26.

The two bills share a subject and almost nothing else. They have different authors, different operative text, and arrived on the Governor's desk by different routes.

AB 1331 was introduced by Assembly Member Elhawary on February 21, 2025, with Assembly Members Bryan, Mark González and Ward and Senators Becker, Cortese and McNerney as coauthors. It passed the Assembly on June 5, 2025, then stalled: the Senate ordered it to the inactive file on September 13, 2025, at the request of Senator Limón, where it sat for roughly eleven months. The Senate pulled it from the inactive file on August 21, 2026, amended it that day and again on August 28, 2026, and passed it 28 to 5 on August 31, 2026. The Assembly concurred in the Senate amendments the same day, 61 to 7. It was enrolled and presented to the Governor at 1:30 p.m. on September 14, 2026.

AB 1883 was introduced by Assembly Member Bryan on February 12, 2026, with no coauthors listed. It moved faster and without the detour: Assembly passage 52 to 12 on May 27, 2026, Senate passage 28 to 9 on August 28, 2026, Assembly concurrence 56 to 8 on August 30, 2026, and presentment to the Governor at 3 p.m. on September 10, 2026.

We covered AB 1331 when it cleared the Legislature in early September, before any signature existed, in our report on the bill's passage through the Senate. The enrolled text is what the Governor signed, and the enrolled text is narrower than the bill's title suggests.

The core prohibitions

AB 1331's operative rule is one sentence. New Labor Code Section 1561, subdivision (a), reads in full:

Unless directed by a court order, an employer shall not use a workplace surveillance tool to monitor or surveil employees in a bathroom located in the workplace.

AB 1331 (2025-2026 Reg. Sess.), as enrolled September 4, 2026, Sec. 1, adding Lab. Code Sec. 1561(a); Stats. 2026, Ch. 851.

AB 1883's operative rule is likewise short. New Labor Code Section 1581, subdivision (a), reads:

An employer shall not use a workplace surveillance tool that uses artificial intelligence on employees for either of the following: (1) Recognizing, or making inferences or predictions about, an individual's emotional state. (2) Collecting neural data.

AB 1883 (2025-2026 Reg. Sess.), as enrolled September 3, 2026, Sec. 1, adding Lab. Code Sec. 1581(a); Stats. 2026, Ch. 853.

Subdivision (b) of that section carries the exception, and it should be read whole rather than clipped: "This section does not prohibit an employer from using a workplace surveillance tool to ensure safety, or otherwise if it does not meet the specifications in subdivision (a)." The exception therefore has two limbs. The first is a safety limb. The second is simply a restatement that tools which do not do emotion inference and do not collect neural data are outside the prohibition in the first place.

A codification problem readers should know about

Both acts purport to add "Part 5.8" to Division 2 of the Labor Code. AB 1331 adds Part 5.8 "Workplace Surveillance of Employees" commencing with Section 1560. AB 1883 adds Part 5.8 "Workplace Surveillance Tools" commencing with Section 1580. Two acts of the same session cannot both occupy the same part number, so the section and part designations in one or both of these acts may be renumbered when the codifier publishes the 2026 statutes.

Treat the chapter numbers, Chapter 851 and Chapter 853 of the Statutes of 2026, as the stable identifiers. The section numbers used throughout this article are the numbers in the enrolled texts, not settled codification. For the same reason, the range we gave in our September report, Sections 1560 through 1566, does not match the enrolled bill: the enrolled AB 1331 contains Sections 1560, 1561, 1563, 1564 and 1565, with no Section 1562 and no Section 1566.

What the Law Actually Says

The single most important thing to understand about AB 1331 is that California has banned employer recording in employee restrooms since January 1, 1999. The new act is not the first rule in this space. It is a second, differently shaped rule layered on top of the first, and the new act says so expressly.

The existing rule: Labor Code Section 435

Labor Code Section 435, added by Statutes of 1998, Chapter 515, provides:

(a) No employer may cause an audio or video recording to be made of an employee in a restroom, locker room, or room designated by an employer for changing clothes, unless authorized by court order.

(b) No recording made in violation of this section may be used by an employer for any purpose. This section applies to a private or public employer, except the federal government.

(c) A violation of this section constitutes an infraction.

Cal. Lab. Code Sec. 435 (added by Stats. 1998, Ch. 515, Sec. 1, effective January 1, 1999).

That is a complete prohibition on the conduct most people picture when they hear "bathroom surveillance." A camera or a microphone in an employee restroom has been unlawful in California for more than a quarter century, and any recording made in violation of the section is unusable by the employer "for any purpose."

What AB 1331 adds to it

New Section 1564(a) is explicit that the old rule survives: "This part is not intended to limit any other state or local law, including, but not limited to, Section 435, that provides equal or greater protection to employees." So the correct way to read Chapter 851 is additive. Four things are genuinely new.

One: the regulated thing is no longer a recording. Section 435 reaches an "audio or video recording." New Section 1560(f) defines a "workplace surveillance tool" as "a system, application, instrument, or device that collects or facilitates the collection of employee data, activities, communications, actions, biometrics, or behaviors by means other than direct observation by a person," and names as examples "video or audio surveillance, continuous incremental time-tracking tools, geolocation, electromagnetic tracking, photoelectronic tracking, a photo-optical system, or other means." The definition excludes smoke and carbon monoxide detectors and weapon detection systems that automatically screen a person's body. A badge reader, a geofence, a wearable tracker and an incremental time-tracking tool are all surveillance tools under Section 1560(f) and none of them is a recording under Section 435.

Two: an employee may leave the device behind. Section 1561(b)(1) provides that "An employee shall have the right to leave behind workplace surveillance tools that are on their person or in their possession when entering a bathroom." Section 435 regulates what the employer may install; Section 1561(b)(1) regulates what the employee must carry. That right has limits written into the same subdivision. It does not apply where an employee is required to remain available during a meal or rest period under federal or existing state law, per Section 1561(b)(2). And Section 1561(b)(3) provides that "Notwithstanding subdivision (a), an employer may check workplace surveillance tools for the one-time entry and exit of bathrooms in the workplace."

Three: two express safe harbors. Under Section 1561(c), an employer is not in violation where an employee voluntarily brings a tool into a workplace bathroom, or where the employee brings in a tool such as a badge or personal alarm because employer policy requires it on work premises for identification or safety, or because it is needed to open a locked or secured bathroom. The second safe harbor applies only if the tool "(A) Does not detect or record audio or video" and "(B) Does not have physically embedded or attached artificial intelligence." Both conditions must hold.

Four: a labor-enforcement route and money. A Section 435 violation is an infraction under subdivision (c), a low-level criminal matter that depends on a prosecutor charging it. New Section 1563(a) instead lets the Labor Commissioner investigate, order temporary relief, and issue a citation using the procedures in Labor Code Sections 98.3, 98.7, 98.74 or 1197.1. Section 1563(b) lets a public prosecutor enforce the part under Chapter 8 of Division 1, commencing with Section 180. Section 1563(c) allows a petitioner in such a civil action to seek temporary or preliminary injunctive relief, punitive damages, and reasonable attorney's fees and costs. Section 1563(d) provides that "In addition to any other remedy, an employer who violates this part may be subject to a penalty of up to five hundred dollars ($500) for each violation."

There is also an asymmetry that runs the other way, and it matters. Section 435 covers a "restroom, locker room, or room designated by an employer for changing clothes." Section 1561(a) covers only "a bathroom located in the workplace." On the face of the enrolled text, the new tool-based prohibition does not reach a locker room or a changing room; those spaces remain governed by Section 435's narrower recording rule. The new act is wider in what it regulates and narrower in where it applies.

Both acts also sweep in public employers. Section 1560(d) defines "employer" to include all branches of state government, cities, counties, school districts, special districts and other political subdivisions, plus labor contractors, client employers under Section 2810.3, property-services contractors under Section 238.5, and farm and foreign labor contractors. AB 1883's Section 1580(d)(2)(A) is more granular still, naming the University of California, the California State University, charter cities, transit districts and community college districts. Section 435(b), by contrast, applies to any private or public employer "except the federal government." Both acts also include legislative findings that their subject is a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair, which is the drafting device used to reach charter cities. Our California employee monitoring guide covers the existing notice and consent baseline these acts sit on top of.

AB 1883 and the definition of neural data

The term doing the work in Chapter 853 is defined, and the definition is narrow. Section 1580(e) provides that "'Neural data' means information that is generated by measuring the activity of an employee's central or peripheral nervous system, and that is not inferred from nonneural information."

Two features of that sentence control its reach. It requires measurement of nervous-system activity, and it excludes anything "inferred from nonneural information." An inference drawn from keystroke cadence, camera footage of a face, or call-center audio is not neural data under Section 1580(e), because the underlying information is not neural. Such a tool can still fall under Section 1581(a)(1) if it recognizes or makes inferences or predictions about an emotional state, but it does not become neural-data collection.

That definition is not new to California law. It is word for word the definition the Legislature already placed in the California Consumer Privacy Act, where Civil Code Section 1798.140(ae)(1)(G) lists "A consumer's neural data" as sensitive personal information and clause (ii) defines it as "information that is generated by measuring the activity of a consumer's central or peripheral nervous system, and that is not inferred from nonneural information." AB 1883 substitutes "employee" for "consumer" and otherwise tracks the consumer-privacy text. See our overview of California's data privacy framework for how the CCPA's sensitive-data category operates.

AB 1883's enforcement provisions in Section 1582 mirror AB 1331's, with two substantive additions. Section 1582(d)(2) provides that "An employee, the Labor Commissioner, or a public prosecutor may recover a penalty under this part as a statutory penalty paid to the employee or a civil penalty, but not both, for the same violation." And Section 1582(f) provides that the part "does not preempt any city, county, or city and county ordinance that provides equal or greater protection to employees who are covered by this part."

Each act carries the same federal carve-out. Sections 1565 and 1583 exempt use of a workplace surveillance tool relating to the development of aircraft for the national airspace, or to the development of products or services for national security, military, space or defense purposes. In both acts the exemption "applies only to the operations covered by a federal statute, federal regulation, or binding federal contract where the use of a workplace surveillance tool is reasonably necessary to comply with" that authority. AB 1331 adds, in Section 1564(c) and (d), that the part neither prohibits surveillance required by federal or existing state law nor authorizes surveillance those laws already forbid.

Analysis: Why This Matters

The following is analysis from the Recording Law Editorial Team.

The headline framing available on the day of signing, that California just banned bathroom surveillance, is the least accurate reading of these two acts. Labor Code Section 435 did that in 1998, and Penal Code Section 647(j)(1) already makes it a misdemeanor to view the interior of a bathroom by means of an instrumentality "with the intent to invade the privacy of a person or persons inside." What Chapter 851 changes is the category of device the law reaches and the machinery used to reach it.

The definitional move in Section 1560(f) is the substantive one. By defining the regulated object as anything that collects employee data "by means other than direct observation by a person," the Legislature pulled badge readers, geolocation, electromagnetic and photoelectronic tracking and incremental time-tracking tools into a bathroom rule that previously covered cameras and microphones. The gap being closed is visible in the two existing provisions. Section 435 attaches to a recording, so a tracker that logs location without recording anything falls outside it. Section 647(j)(1) requires intent to invade privacy, which an employer deploying a productivity tool across a facility would not ordinarily have. Neither provision addresses the device in the employee's own pocket. Section 1561(b)(1) does, and that right to leave a tool behind has no counterpart in either Section 435 or Section 647(j)(1).

The limits are also written into the text, and they are not small. Section 1561(b)(3) permits an employer to check tools for "the one-time entry and exit of bathrooms," which preserves the ordinary badge-in, badge-out record. Section 1561(c)(2) preserves required badges and personal alarms as long as they capture no audio or video and carry no embedded AI. A reader trying to work out whether a specific device is affected should start with those two provisions rather than with Section 1561(a).

Chapter 853 is the more unusual enactment, and for a reason that has little to do with neuroscience. Its first clause, Section 1581(a)(1), reaches emotion recognition generally, and emotion-inference features are already shipped in commercial call-center analytics, video-interview scoring and productivity tools. Its second clause, Section 1581(a)(2), reaches neural data, which the statute defines so tightly that it covers measured nervous-system activity and excludes inference from everything else. The practical weight of the section therefore sits in clause (1), while the novelty that attracts attention sits in clause (2). The borrowing of the CCPA's neural-data definition verbatim means the employment rule and the consumer rule turn on the same definitional line.

One drafting fact deserves to be stated without spin. Two acts of a single session both designating a Part 5.8 of Division 2 is an artifact of parallel bills advancing on separate tracks and being signed within one day of each other. It affects citation, not substance. Anyone who needs to cite this law in a filing or a policy document should use the chapter numbers until the codified text is published.

We are not predicting how the Labor Commissioner will enforce either act, how many citations will issue, or how a court will read any provision. No California court has construed Section 1561 or Section 1581, because neither is yet in force.

How This Affects You

These are general implications, not advice about any specific workplace.

For a California employee, the concrete changes arriving on January 1, 2027 are that an employer's bathroom-area monitoring is measured against a definition that includes non-recording devices, and that an employee acquires a textual right to leave a monitored device outside a workplace bathroom, subject to the meal-and-rest-period limit in Section 1561(b)(2) and the safe harbors in Section 1561(c). Complaints run to the Labor Commissioner under Section 1563(a), using the citation procedures in Labor Code Sections 98.3, 98.7, 98.74 and 1197.1.

For a California employer, the audit question is not only "do we have cameras in restrooms," which Section 435 has answered for 27 years, but "what else that we deploy collects employee data without direct human observation, and does it operate in or at a bathroom." For AI-enabled monitoring, the question set is whether any deployed tool recognizes or infers emotional state, and whether anything in the stack measures nervous-system activity within Section 1580(e).

Nothing in either act creates a claim form, a filing portal, or an entitlement to a payment. Neither act changes California's separate rules on recording conversations, which remain governed by Penal Code Section 632's all-party consent requirement for confidential communications.

What Happens Next

Three things are genuinely open.

The operative date. Both acts go into effect January 1, 2027. Neither enrolled text contains a section setting out facts of necessity, which California Constitution article IV, section 8(d) requires of an urgency statute, and the Legislature's bill-status page classifies AB 1331 as "Non-Urgency"; the parallel page for AB 1883 records the same classification. Under article IV, section 8(c)(1), a statute enacted at a regular session "shall go into effect on January 1 next following a 90-day period from the date of enactment."

Codification. The Part 5.8 collision has to be resolved by the codifier. Watch for the published 2026 statutes and the Labor Code as amended, because the part or section numbers in one or both acts may differ from the enrolled text.

Implementation. Neither act directs the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement to adopt regulations, and neither sets a rulemaking deadline. Enforcement will run through existing Labor Commissioner citation procedures and public-prosecutor actions from day one, which means the first concrete guidance is likely to come from citations and civil filings rather than from a rule. We will update this article when codified section numbers are published or when either act is construed.

This article is legal information, not legal advice. It describes two California acts that were enacted on September 30, 2026 and that go into effect on January 1, 2027, as the enrolled texts read on October 1, 2026. Section numbering may change when the statutes are codified, and no court has yet construed either act. For guidance about a specific workplace, device, or monitoring policy, consult a licensed California employment attorney.

Related articles

• California employee monitoring laws
• AB 1331 clears the California Legislature: our September report
• California recording laws and the all-party consent rule
• California data privacy laws

Last updated: 2026-10-01. Details verified as of 2026-10-01.

Frequently Asked Questions

Are California's AB 1331 and AB 1883 workplace surveillance laws in effect now?

No. Both were approved by the Governor and chaptered on September 30, 2026, as Chapter 851 and Chapter 853, Statutes of 2026, but neither carries an urgency clause. Under California Constitution article IV, section 8(c)(1), each goes into effect January 1, 2027.

Does AB 1331 ban all employee monitoring in California?

No. As enrolled, the operative prohibition in new Labor Code Section 1561(a) applies only to using a workplace surveillance tool to monitor or surveil employees 'in a bathroom located in the workplace.' The act does not impose a general California-wide limit on monitoring elsewhere in the workplace.

Wasn't recording in employee bathrooms already illegal in California?

Yes. California Labor Code Section 435, added in 1998, already bars an employer from causing an audio or video recording of an employee in a restroom, locker room, or changing room absent a court order, and makes a violation an infraction. New Section 1564(a) states that AB 1331's new part is not intended to limit Section 435.

So what does AB 1331 actually add to Labor Code Section 435?

Four things: a 'workplace surveillance tool' definition in Section 1560(f) that reaches non-recording devices such as badge readers, geolocation and time-tracking tools; an employee right under Section 1561(b)(1) to leave such a tool behind when entering a bathroom; Labor Commissioner and public-prosecutor enforcement under Section 1563; and a penalty of up to $500 per violation. Section 435 remains in force alongside it.

Does AB 1331 cover locker rooms and changing rooms?

Not on the face of the enrolled text. Section 1561(a) refers only to 'a bathroom located in the workplace,' while Labor Code Section 435 covers a restroom, locker room, or room designated for changing clothes. Locker rooms and changing rooms remain governed by Section 435's audio and video recording rule.

Can a California employer still log when an employee badges into a bathroom after January 1, 2027?

Section 1561(b)(3) provides that notwithstanding the general prohibition, 'an employer may check workplace surveillance tools for the one-time entry and exit of bathrooms in the workplace.' Section 1561(c)(2) also creates a safe harbor for a badge or personal alarm that employer policy requires, provided it does not detect or record audio or video and has no physically embedded or attached artificial intelligence.

What counts as 'neural data' under AB 1883?

New Labor Code Section 1580(e) defines it as 'information that is generated by measuring the activity of an employee's central or peripheral nervous system, and that is not inferred from nonneural information.' That is the same definition California already uses for consumers in Civil Code Section 1798.140(ae)(1)(G)(ii), so an inference drawn from a camera feed or keystroke data is not neural data.

Does AB 1883 prohibit all AI-based employee monitoring in California?

No. Section 1581(a) reaches two uses of an AI-driven surveillance tool: recognizing or making inferences or predictions about an individual's emotional state, and collecting neural data. Section 1581(b) adds that the section 'does not prohibit an employer from using a workplace surveillance tool to ensure safety, or otherwise if it does not meet the specifications in subdivision (a).'

Who enforces these two California acts, and can an employee bring a claim?

Enforcement is assigned to the Labor Commissioner and to public prosecutors by new Sections 1563(a) and (b) and 1582(a) and (b), with injunctive relief, punitive damages and attorney's fees available in a civil action. AB 1883's Section 1582(d)(2) additionally refers to 'An employee, the Labor Commissioner, or a public prosecutor' recovering a penalty as a statutory penalty paid to the employee or as a civil penalty, but not both for the same violation.

Do these laws apply to government employers in California?

Yes. Section 1560(d) of AB 1331 defines 'employer' to include all branches of state government, cities, counties, school districts and special districts, and AB 1883's Section 1580(d)(2)(A) names the University of California, the California State University, charter cities, transit districts and community college districts. Both acts include findings that their subject is a matter of statewide concern.