Introduction
Assembly Bill 1221 (AB 1221) [2] [4] [6], introduced by Assemblymember Isaac Bryan [2], is a legislative proposal advancing through the California Legislature. It aims to regulate the use of digital surveillance technologies in the workplace [3], addressing concerns about invasive monitoring practices [3]. This bill is part of a broader legislative effort, alongside SB 7 and AB 1331, to establish comprehensive guidelines for workplace surveillance.
Description
Assembly Bill 1221 (AB 1221) [2] [4] [6], introduced by Assemblymember Isaac Bryan [2], is advancing through the California Legislature alongside other proposed legislation such as SB 7 and AB 1331, all aimed at establishing regulations on the use of digital surveillance technologies in the workplace [3]. This legislation seeks to address concerns regarding invasive monitoring practices [3], including the use of tracking devices and AI-driven cameras that operate without human oversight [3], which have been reported by workers in environments heavily influenced by AI and automation [3].
AB 1221 specifically targets workplace surveillance tools [6], including AI [2] [3] [5], and mandates that employers of all sizes provide written notice to employees at least thirty days prior to implementing any monitoring technology. The notice must detail the types of data collected [5], the purpose of the monitoring [1] [5], its frequency and duration [5], data retention periods [5], vendor identities [5], and the rights of employees regarding their data [4], including access and correction.
The bill includes stringent measures to protect employee data, requiring contracts with analytics providers to incorporate robust cybersecurity provisions. Employers will share joint liability for any security breaches involving employee data [1] [5]. At the end of the contract [5], vendors must return employee data in a user-friendly format and delete any remaining copies [5]. Once a surveillance system is operational [5], it may only collect [5], use [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6], and retain information that is deemed “reasonably necessary and proportionate” to its stated purpose [5].
AB 1221 explicitly prohibits the use of certain surveillance technologies [1], including facial recognition (with limited exceptions for unlocking devices or granting access to secured areas), gait analysis [1] [4] [5] [6], emotion detection [1] [5], and neural data collection [1] [4] [5] [6]. Employers are also barred from using surveillance data to infer sensitive employee information [4] [5], such as immigration status [5] [6], veteran status [4], health conditions [6], religious beliefs [4], sexual orientation [5], disability [5] [6], criminal record [5], or credit history [5]. Furthermore, employers cannot rely solely on monitoring data for disciplinary actions or terminations; if such data is considered [5], a human reviewer must verify it [5]. Employees must be informed of decisions based on this data and provided with a simple request form, allowing them five business days to request access to the surveillance and corroborating records [5]. Any valid corrections must be made [5], and personnel actions adjusted within twenty-four hours [5]. Records related to disciplinary actions must be retained for five years [5].
Enforcement authority is granted to the California Labor Commissioner [5], with civil penalties of $500 per violation [5] [6]. The bill also establishes a private right of action for employees, allowing them to seek actual and punitive damages [5], injunctive relief [4] [5] [6], and recovery of attorneys’ fees and costs [4] [6]. Employees may claim “noneconomic” damages for physical pain and mental suffering due to violations [6], potentially increasing employer liability [6]. Critics argue that the bill’s broad scope could hinder legitimate business operations [1], while advocates emphasize the need for protections against invasive surveillance practices [1].
Certain provisions of AB 1221 remain unclear [6], such as what constitutes a “significant update or change” to surveillance tools and the criteria for “up-to-date cybersecurity safeguards.” These ambiguities could lead to inconsistent enforcement and legal challenges, creating uncertainty for businesses in managing compliance with these new regulations [2].
If enacted [1] [4] [5] [6], AB 1221 would require employers to reassess all monitoring technologies and adjust vendor contracts [5], internal policies [1] [5], and disciplinary procedures accordingly [5]. Employers operating in multiple states who are already compliant with New York City’s automated employment decision rules or the EU’s AI Act would face additional obligations [5], including the thirty-day advance notice [5], categorical technology bans [5], and expedited timelines for employee data access [5]. The private right of action [1] [4] [5] [6], not linked to data-breach harm [5], would open new avenues for litigation where monitoring intersects with hiring [5], promotion [5], or termination decisions [5]. As of May 7, 2025 [6], AB 1221 is under review by the Assembly Appropriations Committee and [6], if enacted [1] [4] [5] [6], would introduce some of the most comprehensive workplace privacy regulations in the United States [4] [6].
Conclusion
If enacted [1] [4] [5] [6], AB 1221 would significantly impact workplace privacy regulations in California, setting a precedent for comprehensive surveillance guidelines. Employers would need to reassess their monitoring technologies and ensure compliance with new requirements, potentially facing increased liability and litigation risks. The bill’s passage could influence similar legislative efforts in other jurisdictions, highlighting the growing importance of balancing technological advancements with employee privacy rights.
References
[1] https://www.coblentzlaw.com/news/california-assembly-weighs-nations-broadest-ai-driven-workplace-surveillance-bill-ab-1221-raises-the-bar-and-the-stakes-for-employers/
[2] https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/somebody-s-watching-me-what-you-need-to-7765072/
[3] https://ielabor.org/2025/05/19/lobby-day-success-key-advocacy-wins-for-workers/
[4] https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=db2458c6-625d-4d45-af35-3b405ac2c846
[5] https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/california-assembly-weighs-nation-s-2861097/
[6] https://natlawreview.com/article/somebodys-watching-me-what-you-need-know-about-californias-proposed-ai-employee
