Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherJoin the NetworkGet StartedSubscribeSupportContact
Search
Close

California Legislature Takes Aim at AI-Powered Mind Reading, But Questions Remain

By Jonathan Slowik & Michelle Lappen on September 23, 2026
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn

The California Legislature recently passed Assembly Bill 1883 (“AB 1883”), which would prohibit employers from using artificial intelligence (“AI”) workplace surveillance tools for two specific purposes: recognizing employees’ emotional states or collecting employees’ neural data.

Earlier versions of AB 1883 were considerably broader. Among other things, prior versions would have restricted the use of surveillance tools to infer protected activity or protected characteristics, regulated facial-recognition technology used in disciplinary decisions, and covered certain independent contractors. The bill now heads to Governor Gavin Newsom’s desk for signature.

Notably, the bill provides for a private right of action, in addition to public enforcement. Available remedies would include injunctive relief, punitive damages, reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs, and penalties of up to $500 for each “violation.” The bill does not define what constitutes a “violation”—for example, if a violation accrues for each employee who is surveilled, or whether individual employees could accrue multiple violations (e.g., each pay period) for the same act of surveillance.

Below are some of the key provisions of the bill:

  • Broad Definition of Workplace Surveillance Tools: The bill broadly defines a “workplace surveillance tool” as “any 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 the definition expressly includes “video or audio surveillance, continuous incremental time-tracking tools, geolocation, electromagnetic tracking, photoelectronic tracking, or that utilizes a photo-optical system or other means.”
  • Recognition of Emotional State: Employers would be prohibited from using an AI-powered workplace surveillance tool to recognize—or make inferences or predictions about—an individual’s emotional state. This restriction arguably could encompass tools that purport to assess employee stress, frustration, or sentiment through facial expressions, voice patterns, movements, or other behavioral signals.
  • Collecting Neural Data: Employers also would be prohibited from using an AI-powered workplace surveillance tool to collect “neural data,” defined as information generated by measuring activity in an employee’s central or peripheral nervous system that is not inferred from non-neural information. This definition arguably could reach emerging technologies such as brain-computer interfaces and certain wearable devices.
  • Broad Safety Exception: The bill would not prohibit an employer from using workplace surveillance tools to “ensure safety.” This exception may permit, for example, AI-enabled tools designed to detect driver fatigue, clinician burnout, employee distress, impairment, or other conditions that could create an immediate workplace hazard—even if the tools analyze indicators potentially associated with an employee’s emotional state or neurological data. However, the bill does not define what it means to “ensure safety,” and the exception’s precise scope is unclear. Assuming AB 1883 becomes law, employers intending to rely on this exception should be prepared to identify the specific safety risk being addressed, explain how the tool mitigates that risk, and ensure that the data collected is not repurposed for non-safety uses.
  • Limited Federal-Compliance Exemption: AB 1883 contains a narrow exemption for certain aerospace, national-security, military, space, and defense operations when use of the surveillance tool is reasonably necessary to comply with a federal statute, federal regulation, or binding federal contract.

We’ll continue to monitor how AB 1883 progresses.

Photo of Jonathan Slowik Jonathan Slowik

Jonathan Slowik represents employers in all aspects of litigation, with a particular emphasis in wage and hour class, collective, and representative actions, including those under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA). He has defended dozens of class, collective, and representative actions in state…

Jonathan Slowik represents employers in all aspects of litigation, with a particular emphasis in wage and hour class, collective, and representative actions, including those under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA). He has defended dozens of class, collective, and representative actions in state and federal trial and appellate courts throughout California and beyond. In addition to his core wage and hour work, Jonathan has defended employers in single-plaintiff discrimination, harassment, and retaliation cases, and in labor arbitrations. Jonathan also regularly advises clients on a wide range of compliance issues and on employment issues arising in corporate transactions.

Jonathan has deep experience representing clients in the retail and hospitality industries, but has assisted all types of clients, including those in the health care, telecommunications, finance, media, entertainment, professional services, manufacturing, sports, nonprofit, and information technology industries.

Jonathan is a frequent contributor to Proskauer’s California Employment Law Blog and has written extensively about PAGA on various platforms. He has been published or quoted in Law360, the Daily Journal, the California Lawyer, the Northern California Record, and the UCLA Law Review.

Jonathan received his B.A. from the University of Southern California in 2007, magna cum laude, and J.D. from UCLA School of Law in 2012, where he was a managing editor of the UCLA Law Review.

Read more about Jonathan SlowikEmail
Show more Show less
Photo of Michelle Lappen Michelle Lappen

Michelle Lappen is an associate in the Labor & Employment Department and a member of the Employment Litigation & Arbitration Group. Her practice addresses a wide range of labor and employment issues, including matters involving alleged discrimination, harassment, retaliation, wage-and-hour issues, whistleblowing and…

Michelle Lappen is an associate in the Labor & Employment Department and a member of the Employment Litigation & Arbitration Group. Her practice addresses a wide range of labor and employment issues, including matters involving alleged discrimination, harassment, retaliation, wage-and-hour issues, whistleblowing and wrongful termination. Michelle has represented clients in a variety of industries, including entertainment, healthcare, financial services, professional services and technology.

Michelle has defended nationwide employers in connection with complex, overlapping wage-and-hour class and representative actions. Michelle also has defended single-plaintiff discrimination, harassment, retaliation and wage-and-hour cases in both arbitration and state and federal courts. Michelle has comprehensive experience in litigation, including propounding and responding to written discovery, defending depositions, drafting dispositive motions and managing preparation for trial. In addition to Michelle’s employment litigation practice, she advises clients on various employment issues, including litigation avoidance, pay data reporting and compliance with federal, state and local laws.

Michelle earned her J.D. from Columbia Law School, where she was an articles and submissions editor for the Columbia Journal of Law & the Arts. She also served as a teaching fellow for the Advanced Negotiation Workshop and advocated for state and federal legislation as a clinical student in the Columbia Law Health Justice Advocacy Clinic.

Michelle was selected to be a Protégée for Proskauer’s Women’s Sponsorship Program, an initiative for high-performing, midlevel associates that champions future leaders. She also serves as a member of the Firm’s Summer Program Committee.

Read more about Michelle LappenEmail
Show more Show less
  • Posted in:
    Employment & Labor, Privacy and Cybersecurity, Technology and AI
  • Blog:
    California Employment Law Update
  • Organization:
    Proskauer Rose LLP
  • Article: View Original Source

Call us at 1-800-913-0988 or email sales@lexblog.com.

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
The Library at LexBlog
  • About LexBlog
  • The Field We Built
  • Library at LexBlog
  • Our Beliefs
  • Our Team
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Disclaimer
  • Editorial Policy
  • Terms of Service
  • Get Started
  • Publishing Solutions
  • Compass
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
Copyright © 2026, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo