California AB 1331

Overview

AB 1331 adds Part 5.8, commencing with Section 1560, to Division 2 of the California Labor Code and is titled “Workplace Surveillance of Employees.” It was approved by the Governor and filed with the Secretary of State on September 30, 2026, and it is chaptered as Chapter 851, Statutes of 2026. The statute is not an urgency measure, so it takes effect on 2027-01-01. Its central purpose is narrow but significant: to limit the use of workplace surveillance tools by employers in bathroom settings, while preserving certain safety, security, and legal-compliance uses. The operative text defines “workplace surveillance tool” broadly to reach systems, applications, instruments, or devices that collect employee data, activities, communications, actions, biometrics, or behaviors by means other than direct human observation.

The statute is notable for combining a workplace privacy rule with an enforcement model that allows state labor enforcement and public prosecution. It prohibits employers from using a workplace surveillance tool to monitor or surveil employees in a bathroom located in the workplace unless a court order directs otherwise. It also gives employees a right to leave behind workplace surveillance tools that are on their person or in their possession when entering a bathroom, subject to exceptions tied to availability requirements during meal or rest periods and to one-time bathroom entry and exit checks. The law contains express carve-outs for voluntary employee choices, for certain identification or safety tools such as badges or personal alarm systems, and for federal or state compliance obligations. The Legislature also declared the measure to address a matter of statewide concern, making it applicable to all cities, including charter cities.

Definitions

Section 1560 supplies the key definitions that determine the statute’s reach. “Artificial intelligence” is defined in functional terms as an engineered or machine-based system that varies in autonomy and can infer from input how to generate outputs affecting physical or virtual environments. “Employ” means to engage, suffer, or permit to work, which is the familiar California labor-law formulation. “Employee” means any person employed by an employer, and “employer” is defined expansively to include not only private employers but also branches of state government, local governments, political subdivisions, school districts, special districts, and other public instrumentalities. The definition also extends to labor contractors, client employers under Section 2810.3, property-service contracting entities under Section 238.5, and farm labor contractors and foreign labor contractors.

The definition of “workplace surveillance tool” is the core technical term. It includes any device or system that collects or facilitates the collection of employee data, activities, communications, actions, biometrics, or behaviors through indirect means such as video or audio surveillance, continuous incremental time-tracking tools, geolocation, electromagnetic tracking, photoelectronic tracking, or photo-optical systems. The statute expressly excludes smoke or carbon monoxide detectors and weapon detection systems that automatically screen a person’s body. The law also defines “public prosecutor” by cross-reference to Section 180. These definitions matter because the ban applies only when the tool fits the statutory description and when the use occurs in a bathroom located in the workplace, making the scope broad in technology terms but narrow in location and conduct.

Governance and Institutional Framework

The statute places primary administrative authority with the Labor Commissioner, who may investigate alleged violations, order temporary relief to mitigate a violation or preserve the status quo, issue citations, and file civil actions. The Labor Commissioner’s authority is expressly tied to existing Labor Code procedures under Sections 98.3, 98.7, 98.74, and 1197.1. This means AB 1331 does not create a wholly new enforcement bureaucracy; instead, it folds the new bathroom-surveillance protections into familiar California wage-and-hour enforcement channels. In practical terms, that structure allows the state labor agency to respond quickly where surveillance practices are ongoing and potentially intrusive, while also preserving ordinary contest and hearing processes for disputed citations.

AB 1331 also authorizes enforcement by a public prosecutor under Chapter 8 of Division 1, commencing with Section 180. The civil-action framework allows the petitioner to seek temporary or preliminary injunctive relief, punitive damages, and reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. Venue is available in the superior court of any county where the alleged violation occurred or where the employer transacts business. Together, these provisions create a hybrid governance model: administrative enforcement by the Labor Commissioner, public enforcement by prosecutors, and civil litigation remedies in superior court. The statute also states that it does not limit other state or local laws that provide equal or greater protection to employees, which preserves overlapping protections and avoids preemption of stronger workplace privacy rules. It further declares severability, helping maintain the remaining provisions if one application is invalidated.

Key Focus Areas

The statute’s principal focus is bathroom privacy in the workplace. It forbids monitoring or surveillance of employees in bathrooms, reflecting a legislative judgment that such spaces deserve heightened protection even in workplaces that may otherwise rely on extensive monitoring. This is complemented by the employee right to leave behind surveillance tools carried on the body or in possession when entering a bathroom. The rule is framed carefully: it does not eliminate all surveillance in the workplace, but it sharply limits it in a specific private setting where monitoring is especially sensitive. The statute also accommodates limited employer checks of workplace surveillance tools for one-time entry and exit of bathrooms, which suggests a focus on access control rather than continuous observation.

Another major focus is the regulation of modern monitoring technologies rather than only traditional cameras. The statutory definition reaches time-tracking tools, geolocation, electromagnetic tracking, photoelectronic tracking, photo-optical systems, audio and video surveillance, and similar indirect data-collection methods. Yet the law contains several limiting principles. It does not prohibit surveillance that is required by federal law, existing state law, federal regulation, or existing state regulation. It also does not authorize conduct that those laws already prohibit. In addition, the statute allows an employer to require certain tools, such as a badge or personal alarm system, to remain with the employee for identification or safety purposes, or where needed to access a locked or secured bathroom, so long as the tool does not record audio or video and does not have physically embedded or attached artificial intelligence. These carve-outs show the statute is designed to regulate intrusive use, not basic workplace safety or access systems.

Implementation Framework

Implementation begins with the operative prohibition: unless directed by a court order, an employer may not use a workplace surveillance tool to monitor or surveil employees in a bathroom located in the workplace. Employers must also respect the employee’s right to leave behind workplace surveillance tools on their person or in their possession when entering a bathroom, unless the employee is required to remain available during meal or rest periods under federal law or existing state law. Employers may, however, check workplace surveillance tools for the one-time entry and exit of bathrooms. This combination requires employers to revise policies, train managers, and assess whether wearable badges, alarms, or similar tools fall within the statutory exceptions.

The law provides two specific circumstances in which an employer is not in violation. First, if an employee voluntarily chooses to bring a workplace surveillance tool into a bathroom, the employer is not liable on that basis alone. Second, if an employee must bring a device into a bathroom because the employer requires the device to remain in the employee’s possession on work premises for identification or safety purposes, or because the device is needed to access a locked or secured bathroom, the employer is not in violation if the device does not detect or record audio or video and does not have physically embedded or attached artificial intelligence. The statute’s implementation logic therefore depends on device function, employer policy, and the specific location at issue. Employers should map their technology inventory against the statutory definitions and exemptions, and separate access-control devices from surveillance systems to reduce compliance risk.

Monitoring and Evaluation

AB 1331 does not create a bespoke reporting regime or a recurring audit obligation, but it does embed monitoring through enforcement. The Labor Commissioner may investigate alleged violations, order temporary relief, and issue citations. Those powers are important because they allow the state to evaluate compliance based on complaints, inspections, or other enforcement triggers without waiting for a final adjudication. The availability of temporary or preliminary injunctive relief in civil actions also means courts can intervene early when a surveillance practice appears ongoing. This creates a practical feedback loop: complaints can trigger investigation, interim orders can stop continuing harm, and citations or civil actions can produce a record of employer conduct.

Because the statute is limited to bathrooms, evaluation will likely focus on whether an employer’s technology is being used in those locations and whether the device or system falls within the statutory definition of workplace surveillance tool. The exemptions themselves will also require careful factual scrutiny. For example, if an employer claims a device is a badge or personal alarm system needed for identification or safety, the question becomes whether it records audio or video and whether it contains embedded or attached artificial intelligence. The statute’s cross-reference to temporary relief and citation procedures indicates that enforcement will be integrated into existing labor-law mechanisms rather than depending on a new oversight agency. The law also leaves room for stronger local protections and broader workplace privacy measures under other laws.

Penalties, Liability, and Appeals

An employer that violates the part may be subject to a civil penalty of up to $500 for each violation. That penalty is expressly cumulative with other available remedies, because the statute states that the Labor Commissioner may issue citations and file civil actions and that, in a civil action, the petitioner may seek temporary or preliminary injunctive relief, punitive damages, and reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. The law therefore creates both monetary and equitable exposure, even though it does not describe a private right of action in the same terms as some other California labor statutes. The reference to citations and enforcement under existing Labor Code procedures also means employers will have the ordinary ability to contest citations through the established administrative process.

AB 1331 does not set out a unique appellate track, but disputes arising from citations, civil actions, or injunctive relief will proceed under the ordinary procedures applicable to the forum and remedy chosen. The venue rule allows actions in any county where the violation allegedly occurred or where the employer transacts business, which can affect litigation strategy and convenience. The statute’s severability clause helps preserve the remainder of the law if one provision or application is invalidated. It also states that it does not limit stronger state or local laws and does not authorize conduct prohibited elsewhere, which means liability analysis must consider overlapping labor, privacy, and safety rules. In practice, the main risk is not only the $500-per-violation penalty but also injunctions, fees, and the reputational impact of unlawful bathroom surveillance practices.

Relationship to Other Instruments

The statute is expressly designed to coexist with other California laws. It states that it is not intended to limit any other state or local law, including Section 435, that provides equal or greater protection to employees. That language is important because it preserves other privacy and workplace-protection measures without displacement. It also means employers cannot treat AB 1331 as an exclusive code of conduct; instead, they must evaluate it alongside general Labor Code obligations, privacy protections, safety rules, and local ordinances. The statute’s severability clause further reinforces that the new bathroom-surveillance protections are intended to survive even if one piece is challenged.

AB 1331 also interacts with federal law in a careful way. It does not prohibit workplace surveillance tools required by federal law, existing state law, federal regulation, or existing state regulation. It likewise does not authorize use prohibited by federal or state law. Separate exemptions are provided for aircraft development in the national airspace and for products or services developed for national security, military, space, or defense purposes, but only to the extent the use is reasonably necessary to comply with a federal statute, federal regulation, or binding federal contract. The statute therefore sits within a layered compliance environment rather than creating an isolated rule. Its focus is not general workplace monitoring, but the special privacy interests implicated in bathroom settings.

National/Federal Alignment

At the federal level, AB 1331 is complementary rather than duplicative. The statute explicitly defers to federal law and federal regulation where surveillance is required, and it allows the limited one-time bathroom-entry and exit checks that may be necessary for security or access control. It also recognizes the possibility that some employees must remain available during meal or rest periods under federal or existing state law. This makes the California rule compatible with federal labor and workplace-safety regimes while still giving California employees stronger location-based privacy protections. The law’s treatment of a badge or personal alarm system used for identification or safety also reflects practical employer needs that may arise under federal workplace safety or security standards.

The statute differs from federal law primarily by creating a specific state-level bathroom privacy restriction for workplace surveillance tools and by defining “workplace surveillance tool” in a broad, technology-neutral way. There is no federal counterpart in the text that categorically bans bathroom monitoring in this form. The law also embeds AI into the definition of certain devices by excluding tools with physically embedded or attached artificial intelligence from the exception for some identification or safety devices. In that sense, California is using labor law to regulate a technology-enabled workplace practice that federal law has not comprehensively addressed. The statewide-concern finding also underscores California’s intent to apply the rule uniformly across all cities, including charter cities, avoiding local fragmentation within the state.

Implementation Timeline

Compliance Checklist

Sources and References