New Hampshire
New Hampshire Employee Monitoring Laws: Workplace Surveillance and Social Media (2026)
New Hampshire employers can monitor work email, phone lines, and company computer systems under the federal wiretap law's business-use exception, but that exception interacts with New Hampshire's own strict, all-party consent rule for recording conversations. State law adds two specific, real protections beyond the federal baseline: a social media password law and a dedicated statute restricting electronic tracking devices.
This article provides general legal information about New Hampshire employee monitoring law as of July 9, 2026. It is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Consult a New Hampshire-licensed attorney about your specific situation.
Scope: This article covers New Hampshire law on an employer's authority to monitor employees, access personal social media, and conduct workplace video, GPS, and biometric monitoring. It does not re-derive New Hampshire's general all-party consent recording rules (see our New Hampshire recording laws guide) or GPS law generally outside the employment context (see our New Hampshire GPS tracking laws guide).
The Federal Baseline: the "Ordinary Course of Business" Exception
New Hampshire's starting point for any workplace monitoring question is federal, not state, law. Title I of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act makes it unlawful to intentionally intercept wire, oral, or electronic communications without consent (; see also sections 2510-2523), but the statute carves out a broad business-extension exemption for the owner of a communications system. Under (5)(a), equipment furnished by a communications provider and used by the subscriber or user in the ordinary course of business is excluded from the Act's definition of a prohibited interception device, an exemption courts have extended to employers who own the phone, email, and computer systems their staff use.
The leading case applying this exception is Watkins v. L.M. Berry & Co., 704 F.2d 577 (11th Cir. 1983), where an employer monitored a sales line as part of a standing training program. The court held that once a monitored call is determined to be personal rather than business-related, the employer's ordinary-course exception generally ends, and continued listening can create liability. New Hampshire's own strict consent rule for recording, described next, layers on top of this federal baseline for anything involving audio recording specifically.
How New Hampshire's All-Party Consent Rule Affects Employer Monitoring
New Hampshire requires every party's consent before an oral communication may be recorded, , making it an all-party (two-party) consent state. This governs whether a conversation may be recorded at all; it is a distinct question from whether an employer may review already-stored business communications, like email logs or call metadata, under the federal ordinary-course exception. In practice, an employer that wants to record employee phone calls or in-person meetings, as opposed to merely monitoring computer or network activity, needs the consent structure requires, typically satisfied through a written monitoring policy the employee acknowledges. For the full framework on New Hampshire's all-party consent rule, see our New Hampshire recording laws guide and our New Hampshire workplace recording guide.
Does New Hampshire Require Notice Before Electronic Monitoring?
No. A small group of states, Connecticut, Delaware, New York, and (starting in 2026) Maine, require employers to give employees written or posted notice before monitoring phone, email, or internet use on the job. New Hampshire has not enacted a comparable statute. A New Hampshire employer that wants to monitor company email or internet use on employer-owned systems can generally do so relying on the federal ordinary-course exception, without a state-mandated notice or acknowledgment step, subject to the all-party consent rule described above for anything involving recorded audio.
New Hampshire's Social Media Privacy Law for Employees
New Hampshire's dedicated employee monitoring statute is , Use of Social Media and Electronic Mail. It prohibits an employer from requesting or requiring that an employee or prospective employee disclose login information for a personal account or service accessed through an electronic communication device. Employers also cannot compel a worker to add the employer or its agent as a contact, or to reduce the privacy settings on a personal account in a way that would let a third party see its contents, and cannot take or threaten disciplinary action against an employee for refusing an unlawful request.
The statute preserves real employer authority. An employer may still enforce policies governing use of workplace electronic equipment, monitor employer-provided equipment and email systems, and require login information for an account provided through the employment relationship or paid for by the employer. It may also investigate suspected workplace misconduct or unauthorized transfer of proprietary information based on specific evidence, though the employee generally only needs to share content the employer already received rather than open the whole account. If an employer inadvertently obtains an employee's personal password through routine network monitoring, the statute bars using it to access that personal account. Under , an employer that violates is subject to a civil penalty of up to $2,500, imposed by the New Hampshire Labor Commissioner following the procedure in RSA 273:11-a.
GPS and Vehicle Tracking of New Hampshire Employees
Unlike most states, New Hampshire has a dedicated statute addressing electronic tracking devices rather than relying only on a general stalking law. , part of the Electronic Device Location Information chapter, provides that no individual or person shall, without consent, place, locate, or install an electronic device on the person or property of another and obtain location information from it. Because the statute's prohibition runs to tracking "the person or property of another," a company vehicle titled to and owned by the employer is the employer's own property, not the property of another, so does not by its terms restrict an employer from placing a GPS tracker in a vehicle it owns.
Enforcement is layered. , I makes a purposeful violation of the chapter by someone acting for a government agency a class B misdemeanor, but that criminal penalty is written specifically for government actors; , II separately lets any person injured by a violation of RSA 644-A:4, including by a private individual or business acting outside the government context, bring a civil action. For a New Hampshire employer, the practical takeaway is that tracking a company-owned vehicle is not restricted by this statute, but tracking an employee's personal vehicle, or continuing to track a vehicle after an employee's consent is withdrawn, could expose the employer to a civil claim. For the general legal framework governing tracking devices in New Hampshire, including United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012), see our New Hampshire GPS tracking laws guide.
Video and Audio Surveillance in New Hampshire Workplaces
New Hampshire has no employment-specific video-surveillance statute, but its general Violation of Privacy law limits where a camera, employer-owned or not, can point. makes it a class A misdemeanor to unlawfully install or use a device to observe, photograph, record, or transmit images or sounds of a person's private body parts or of a person in a place where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy, such as a restroom, changing room, or similar space, without consent. A second violation involving these provisions is a class B felony, and violations involving a person the offender knows or should know is a minor carry enhanced felony penalties. The law also separately restricts distributing images obtained in violation of the statute and includes an exception preserving lawful law-enforcement surveillance conducted with articulable suspicion.
An employer that installs a camera in a restroom or locker room, even for a stated safety or loss-prevention reason, is exposed to criminal liability under this statute just as any other person would be. Cameras in common work areas, sales floors, and entrances are generally permissible without a state-specific notice requirement, subject to general reasonableness limits under common-law privacy claims. Audio recording of employee conversations is governed by New Hampshire's all-party consent rule described above; our New Hampshire workplace recording guide covers that consent question, including an employee's own right to record conversations at work, in depth.
Biometric Monitoring: Time Clocks and the New Hampshire Data Privacy Act
Employers increasingly use fingerprint or facial-recognition time clocks, and in trucking, driver-facing cameras that can capture biometric identifiers. Illinois' Biometric Information Privacy Act, 740 ILCS 14, is the strongest law of this kind nationally, requiring written consent before collection and creating a private right of action; it does not apply outside Illinois. New Hampshire employees do not have an Illinois-style biometric consent statute.
New Hampshire does have the New Hampshire Data Privacy Act, RSA 507-H, effective January 1, 2025, which classifies biometric data processed to uniquely identify an individual as sensitive data requiring the consumer's opt-in, affirmative consent before a covered business may process it. But the Act, like most comprehensive state privacy laws, does not apply to personal data processed in an employment context, so an employee's fingerprint or face scan collected for a workplace time clock generally falls outside its protections. New Hampshire employees relying on a fingerprint or facial-recognition time clock are, practically speaking, protected mainly by their employer's own policies and by common-law privacy claims, not by a dedicated state biometric statute. See our New Hampshire biometric privacy guide and our overview of the New Hampshire Data Privacy Act for how the consumer-facing rules work outside the employment context.
What New Hampshire Employees Can Do About Monitoring Concerns
An employee who believes an employer crossed a legal line has a few concrete options depending on what happened. A demand for a social media password can be reported to the New Hampshire Department of Labor for a possible fine of up to $2,500 under RSA 275:75. A tracking device placed on a personal vehicle, or on a company vehicle after consent was withdrawn, can support a civil claim under RSA 644-A:6, II. A camera in a restroom or locker room can support both a report to law enforcement under RSA 644:9 and a civil invasion-of-privacy claim. Monitoring tied to a protected characteristic, retaliation for a workers' compensation claim, or interference with concerted activity under the National Labor Relations Act may also fall under the New Hampshire Commission for Human Rights or the National Labor Relations Board rather than a monitoring-specific statute.
Because New Hampshire's monitoring rules are split across several distinct sources, criminal privacy and wiretap law, RSA 275:74, RSA 644-A, general tort law, and federal wiretap and labor law, an employee with a specific fact pattern should keep records (dates, what was monitored, any written policy) and consult a New Hampshire-licensed employment attorney rather than assume a single statute covers the situation. For the broader 50-state picture, see our Employee Monitoring Laws by State hub and our general US recording laws guide.
Disclaimer
This article provides general legal information about New Hampshire employee monitoring law as of July 9, 2026. It is not a substitute for individualized legal advice. Employment monitoring disputes often involve overlapping statutes, employer policy, and federal law, and outcomes depend on specific facts. Readers should consult an attorney licensed in New Hampshire for advice about a particular situation.
Related articles
- Employee Monitoring Laws by State
- New Hampshire Recording Laws
- New Hampshire Workplace Recording Laws
- New Hampshire GPS Tracking Laws
- New Hampshire Biometric Privacy Laws
- US Recording Laws by State
Last updated: July 9, 2026. Statutes cited reflect their in-force version as of that date.
More New Hampshire Laws
Frequently Asked Questions
Can my employer read my work email in New Hampshire?
Generally yes, once the email is on an employer-owned system. New Hampshire has no state notice statute, so employers typically rely on the federal ordinary-course-of-business exemption in 18 U.S.C. section 2510(5)(a) to review company email and internet use.
Can my employer ask for my Facebook or Instagram password in New Hampshire?
No, not for personal accounts. RSA 275:74 prohibits an employer from requesting or requiring login information for a personal social media or email account, and RSA 275:75 makes a violator subject to a fine of up to $2,500 from the Labor Commissioner.
Does New Hampshire law require my employer to tell me I'm being monitored?
Not by a dedicated statute. Unlike Connecticut, Delaware, New York, and Maine, New Hampshire has not enacted a general electronic-monitoring notice law, so no state-mandated written or posted notice is required before monitoring employer-owned systems.
Can my employer put a GPS tracker on a company vehicle I drive in New Hampshire?
Generally yes. RSA 644-A:4 prohibits placing a tracking device on the property of another without consent, but a company vehicle is the employer's own property, so the statute does not by its terms restrict an employer from tracking a vehicle it owns.
Is it legal for someone to put a tracking device on my personal vehicle in New Hampshire without my consent?
No. RSA 644-A:4 prohibits placing an electronic tracking device on another person's property without consent. A private violator generally faces civil liability under RSA 644-A:6, II, while the criminal misdemeanor penalty in RSA 644-A:6, I is written specifically for government agents.
Can my employer put a camera in a New Hampshire workplace restroom or locker room?
No. RSA 644:9 (Violation of Privacy) makes it a class A misdemeanor to install or use a recording device in a place where someone has a reasonable expectation of privacy, including restrooms and locker rooms, and this applies to employer-installed cameras just as it applies to anyone else.
Can my New Hampshire employer require a fingerprint scan for the time clock?
There is no Illinois-style biometric consent statute in New Hampshire, and the New Hampshire Data Privacy Act (RSA 507-H) excludes employment-context data from its consumer consent requirements. Employees generally rely on employer policy and common-law privacy claims rather than a dedicated biometric statute.
What can I do if my New Hampshire employer violates the social media password law?
An employee or applicant can report a suspected RSA 275:74 violation to the New Hampshire Department of Labor, which can impose a fine of up to $2,500 against the employer under RSA 275:75.
Updates
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources
Corrected five instances (KeyTakeaways, two body mentions, two FAQ answers) that attributed the $2,500 civil penalty to RSA 275:74 itself. RSA 275:74 contains only the substantive login-information prohibitions; the penalty mechanism is the separate RSA 275:75 (applying the RSA 273:11-a procedure and cap). Added RSA 275:75 to the Sources list.
Governing law re-checked for recent changes
Re-pinned the civil-action remedy for unlawful electronic tracking from the nonexistent RSA 644-A:5 to the correct provision, RSA 644-A:6, II (four instances: KeyTakeaways, body, 'what employees can do' section, and FAQ), and corrected the federal 'ordinary course of business' employer-monitoring exception to its actual statutory source, 18 U.S.C. section 2510(5)(a) (not 2511(2)(a)(i)).
Governing law re-checked for recent changes
Reviewed and approved by an editor
The Law Behind This Article
This article rests on 8 statutory provisions held in our own legal record, each retrieved from the official source. Tap a section to read the operative text.
United States Code Title 18
§ 2510DefinitionsIn forcecited in 120 of our articles
As used in this chapter— “wire communication” means any aural transfer made in whole or in part through the use of facilities for the transmission of communications by the aid of wire, cable, or other like connection between the point of origin and the point of reception (including the use of such connection in a switching station) furnished or operated by any person engaged in providing or operating such facilities for the transmission of interstate or foreign communications or communications affecting interstate or foreign commerce; “oral communication” means any oral communication uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that such communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such expectation, but such term does not include any electronic communication; “State” means any State of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and any territory or possession of the United States; “intercept” means the aural or other acquisition of the contents of any wire, electronic, or oral communication through the use of any electronic, mechanical, or other device.1 So in original. The period probably should be a semicolon.
Official text (excerpt) · as of 2026-07-28 · Read the full section at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 2,382 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2026
Leading cases: Forsyth v. Barr (Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit 1994, 19 F.3d 1527) · Nixon v. Administrator of General Services (Supreme Court of the United States 1977, 433 U.S. 425) · Gannett Co. v. DePasquale (Supreme Court of the United States 1979, 443 U.S. 368)
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: US Recording Laws by State (2026): All 50 States Explained, District of Columbia Recording Laws (2026): One-Party Consent Rules, Kentucky Phone Call Recording Laws: What You Need to Know
§ 2511Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibitedIn forcecited in 397 of our articles
Except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter any person who— intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, any wire, oral, or electronic communication; intentionally uses, endeavors to use, or procures any other person to use or endeavor to use any electronic, mechanical, or other device to intercept any oral communication when— such device is affixed to, or otherwise transmits a signal through, a wire, cable, or other like connection used in wire communication; or such device transmits communications by radio, or interferes with the transmission of such communication; or such person knows, or has reason to know, that such device or any component thereof has been sent through the mail or transported in interstate or foreign commerce; or such use or endeavor to use (A) takes place on the premises of any business or other commercial establishment the operations of which affect interstate or foreign commerce; or (B) obtains or is for the purpose of obtaining information relating to the operations of any business or other commercial establishment the operations of which affect interstate or foreign…
Official text (excerpt) · as of 2026-08-12 · Read the full section at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 2,045 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2026
Leading cases: Mitchell v. Forsyth (Supreme Court of the United States 1985, 472 U.S. 511) · United States v. United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (Supreme Court of the United States 1972, 407 U.S. 297) · Forsyth v. Barr (Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit 1994, 19 F.3d 1527)
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Alabama Audio Recording Laws: Consent Rules and Penalties, Alabama Dashcam Laws: Legality, Mounting Rules, and Evidence Use, Alabama Medical Recording Laws: Patient Rights and HIPAA Rules
New Hampshire Revised Statutes Annotated, TITLE XXIII LABOR, CHAPTER 275 PROTECTIVE LEGISLATION
§ 275:74Use of Social Media and Electronic Mail.In force
I. No employer shall request or require that an employee or prospective employee disclose login information for accessing any personal account or service through an electronic communication device. II. No employer shall compel an employee or applicant to add anyone, including the employer or the employer's agent, to a list of contacts associated with an electronic mail account or personal account or require an employee or applicant to reduce the privacy settings associated with any electronic mail or personal account that would affect a third party's ability to view the contents of the account. III. No employer shall take or threaten to take disciplinary action against any employee for such employee's refusal to comply with a request or demand by the employer that violates this subdivision. IV. Nothing in this subdivision shall limit an employer's right to: (a) Adopt and enforce lawful workplace policies governing the use of the employer's electronic equipment, including policies regarding Internet use, social networking site use, and electronic mail use. (b) Monitor usage of the employer's electronic equipment and electronic mail.
Official text (excerpt) · as of 2026-07-29 · Read the full section at gc.nh.gov
§ 275:75Penalty.In force
Any employer violating RSA 275:74 shall be subject to a civil penalty, to be imposed by the labor commissioner in accordance with the procedures established in RSA 273:11-a. An employer aggrieved by the commissioner's assessment of such penalty may appeal in accordance with RSA 273:11-c.
Official text (excerpt) · as of 2026-07-29 · Read the full section at gc.nh.gov
New Hampshire Revised Statutes Annotated, TITLE LVIII PUBLIC JUSTICE, CHAPTER 570-A WIRETAPPING AND EAVESDROPPING
§ 570-A:2Interception and Disclosure of Telecommunication or Oral Communications Prohibited.In forcecited in 21 of our articles
I. A person is guilty of a class B felony if, except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter or without the consent of all parties to the communication, the person: (a) Wilfully intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, any telecommunication or oral communication; (b) Wilfully uses, endeavors to use, or procures any other person to use or endeavor to use any electronic, mechanical, or other device to intercept any oral communication when: (1) Such device is affixed to, or otherwise transmits a signal through, a wire, cable, or other like connection used in telecommunication, or (2) Such device transmits communications by radio, or interferes with the transmission of such communication, or (3) Such use or endeavor to use (A) takes place on premises of any business or other commercial establishment, or (B) obtains or is for the purpose of obtaining information relating to the operations of any business or other commercial establishment; or (c) Wilfully discloses, or endeavors to disclose, to any other person the contents of any telecommunication or oral communication, knowing or having reason to know that…
Official text (excerpt) · as of 2026-07-29 · Read the full section at gc.nh.gov
Cited in 35 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2025
Leading cases: State v. Kilgus (Supreme Court of New Hampshire 1986, 128 N.H. 577) · Fischer v. Hooper (Supreme Court of New Hampshire 1999, 143 N.H. 585) · State of New Hampshire v. Adam Mueller (Supreme Court of New Hampshire 2014, 166 N.H. 65)
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: New Hampshire Audio Recording Laws, New Hampshire AI Meeting Recording Laws (2026)
New Hampshire Revised Statutes Annotated, TITLE LXII CRIMINAL CODE, CHAPTER 644-A ELECTRONIC DEVICE LOCATION INFORMATION
§ 644-A:4Conditions of Use of Location Information.In forcecited in 2 of our articles
No individual or person shall, without consent, place, locate, or install an electronic device on the person or property of another and obtain location information from such electronic device. No such consent shall be required by the parent, foster parent, or legal guardian of a minor, or by the legal guardian for the subject of his or her guardianship, or for persons under house arrest or probation or parole supervision who are issued ankle bracelets.
Official text (excerpt) · as of 2026-07-29 · Read the full section at gc.nh.gov
§ 644-A:6Penalties.In forcecited in 2 of our articles
I. Any individual acting or purporting to act for or on behalf of a federal, state, or local agency who purposely violates this chapter shall be guilty of a class B misdemeanor. II. An individual or person who is injured as a result of a violation of this chapter may file a civil action against a government entity, individual, or person that fails to comply with the provisions of this chapter.
Official text (excerpt) · as of 2026-07-29 · Read the full section at gc.nh.gov
New Hampshire Revised Statutes Annotated, TITLE LXII CRIMINAL CODE, CHAPTER 644 BREACHES OF THE PEACE AND RELATED OFFENSES
§ 644:9Violation of Privacy.In forcecited in 12 of our articles
I. A person is guilty of a class A misdemeanor if such person unlawfully and without the consent of the persons entitled to privacy therein, installs or uses: (a) Any device for the purpose of observing, photographing, recording, amplifying, broadcasting, or in any way transmitting images or sounds of the private body parts of a person including the genitalia, buttocks, or female breasts, or a person's body underneath that person's clothing; or (b) In any private place, any device for the purpose of observing, photographing, recording, amplifying or broadcasting, or in any way transmitting images or sounds in such place; or (c) Outside a private place, any device for the purpose of hearing, recording, amplifying, broadcasting, observing, or in any way transmitting images, location, movement, or sounds originating in such place which would not ordinarily be audible, visible, or comprehensible outside such place. II.
Official text (excerpt) · as of 2026-07-29 · Read the full section at gc.nh.gov
Cited in 4 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2023
Leading cases: State v. McLellan (Supreme Court of New Hampshire 1999, 144 N.H. 602) · State of New Hampshire v. Justin M. Lamontagne (Supreme Court of New Hampshire 2023) · State v. Richard Lucas (Supreme Court of New Hampshire 2018)
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Search our full record of US law — 2.1 million sections, every state + federal →
Sources and References
- RSA 275:74, Use of Social Media and Electronic Mail(gc.nh.gov).gov
- 18 U.S.C. section 2510(5)(a), business-extension exemption for equipment used in the ordinary course of business(law.cornell.edu).gov
- Watkins v. L.M. Berry & Co., 704 F.2d 577 (11th Cir. 1983)(law.resource.org)
- RSA 644-A:4, Conditions of Use of Location Information(gc.nh.gov).gov
- RSA 644-A:6, Penalties(gc.nh.gov).gov
- RSA 644:9, Violation of Privacy(gc.nh.gov).gov
- RSA 570-A:2, Interception and Disclosure of Telecommunication or Oral Communications Prohibited(gc.nh.gov).gov
- RSA 507-H, New Hampshire Data Privacy Act(gc.nh.gov).gov
- RSA 275:75, Violation; Penalty(gc.nh.gov).gov
- 18 U.S.C. § 2511 – Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibited(uscode.house.gov).gov