The New Laws

SB 947 – No Robo Bosses Act (effective July 1, 2027)

SB 947 elaborates on existing limits on the use of ADS, as defined below, to prohibit employers from using ADS to violate labor, occupational safety and health, employment, or civil rights laws; to infer an employee’s race, national origin, sex, gender, disability, or other protected status;¹ or to predict and take adverse action against a worker for exercising their legal rights. It defines “ADS” broadly to include AI that issues scores, classifications, or recommendations which are used to replace or assist human discretionary decisionmaking and materially impacts a person. However, routine technology tools (e.g., spam email filters, identity and access management tools, and databases and other data compilations) are excluded from the law’s scope.

At its core, the law requires an element of human oversight. Employers are prohibited from relying “solely” on ADS when making a disciplinary or termination decision. If an employer wishes to rely “primarily” on ADS for a disciplinary or termination decision, it must obtain human corroboration of the decision using the data underlying the ADS output or other relevant information, which may include supervisory evaluations, personnel files, employee work product, peer reviews, and witness interviews. If the ADS output cannot be corroborated, or the reviewer concludes it is inaccurate, incomplete, or misleading, the employer may not use it for such purposes.

In addition to human oversight, the law requires transparency for affected employees. When an employer has “primarily used an ADS to make a disciplinary or termination decision[,]” employees are granted the right to request “a meaningful, objective description” of their own data used by the ADS. SB 947 also requires employers who have primarily relied on ADS to provide written notice of their ADS use when the employee is informed of the relevant disciplinary or termination decision. This post-use notice must explain that ADS was primarily relied upon for the decision, that a human reviewed and corroborated the ADS output, who to contact for more information, and that retaliation against employees for exercising their rights is prohibited.

The law empowers the Labor Commissioner to investigate and issue citations for alleged violations and also empowers public prosecutors to file civil enforcement actions. Once it is shown that an ADS was used, the burden shifts to the employer to demonstrate either that it did not primarily rely on the ADS or that it complied with the human oversight and notice requirements. The law also includes anti-retaliation protections and a $500 civil penalty per violation.

For employers, SB 947 may prompt a closer look at the contexts in which performance management, productivity, scheduling, and investigation tools generate scores or recommendations that factor into discipline or termination decisions. As the law turns on whether an employer “primarily” relies on ADS output, it remains to be seen how this concept will be interpreted and what degree of human corroboration will be deemed sufficient. The notice and data-description rights also raise practical questions about timing, language, and response processes.

AB 1883 – AI Emotion Recognition and Neural Data (effective January 1, 2027)

AB 1883 prohibits employers, as well as “labor contractor[s] of employers,” from using workplace surveillance tools to (i) recognize, infer, or predict an individual’s emotional state or (ii) collect neural data, with a carve-out for tools used to ensure safety. “Neural data” refers to information generated by measuring the activity of the central or peripheral nervous system, which is not inferred from nonneural information.

The law empowers the Labor Commissioner to investigate complaints and issue citations for violations, and public prosecutors to file civil enforcement actions. It provides for fines of up to $500 per violation, which may be recoverable either as a statutory penalty paid to the employee or as a civil penalty, but not both.

SB 1883 is intended to address a perceived trend among call centers and other employers of collecting biometric data with wearable devices for quality-assurance and other performance-related purposes. The law leaves many questions open, including how and in what contexts certain safety-related exceptions will apply. Governor Newsom noted when signing AB 1883 that “more work remains”, citing the law’s lack of key definitions that “may create confusion about which tools are covered.” As a result, further legislation on this subject is possible.

AB 1331 – Workplace Surveillance in Bathrooms (effective January 1, 2027)

With limited exceptions, AB 1331 prohibits employers from using a “workplace surveillance tool” to monitor or surveil employees in workplace bathrooms. The law broadly defines “workplace surveillance tools” to include systems, applications, instruments, or devices that collect or facilitate the collection of employee data, activities, communications, actions, biometrics, or behaviors by means other than direct observation by a person, including video or audio surveillance, continuous incremental time-tracking tools, geolocation, electromagnetic tracking, photoelectronic tracking, and photo-optical systems, with exclusions for smoke and carbon monoxide detectors as well as body-screening weapon detectors.

The law’s enforcement mechanisms mirror AB 1883, and contemplate penalties of up to $500 per violation. The law expressly states that it does not limit Labor Code § 435, which bans audio or video recording of employees in restrooms, locker rooms, or changing rooms, or other more protective laws.

While the law includes a carveout stating that it is not a violation if an employee is required to bring a “workplace surveillance tool” into a bathroom “for identification or safety purposes or if the tool is required to access a locked or secured bathroom” (subject to certain conditions), it remains to be seen how these carveouts will be interpreted. Further, in his statement to the Legislature, Governor Newsom encouraged lawmakers to clarify and further refine AB 1331 to ensure its goals are accomplished “without preventing the deployment of beneficial tools used for security or other legitimate purposes.”

SB 951 – Cal-WARN Disclosures for AI-Related Workforce Reductions (effective January 1, 2027)

SB 951 amends Cal-WARN to add new notice requirements for AI-induced workforce reductions. Existing thresholds continue to govern: a covered establishment of 75 or more employees, and a mass layoff of 50 or more employees within 30 days, a relocation of 100 miles or more, or a termination, each requiring 60 days’ notice.

However, with the passage of SB 951, a mass layoff, relocation, or termination which is “caused in whole or in substantial part by an AI system or other automated technology replacing or automating employment positions,” triggers additional notice requirements including: the number, classification or occupation, and work location of the affected layoffs; the job functions that will be automated; and the specific category or type of AI technology involved. The top of the notice must state: “This notice is for a technology displacement”.

SB 951’s amendments will likely impact how mass layoffs are planned and characterized. It remains to be seen what constitutes a reduction caused “in whole or in substantial part” by AI—particularly in instances where AI is just one of several factors.

The Bottom Line

California is building a layered framework regulating employers’ use of AI in the workplace in addition to its existing anti-discrimination and privacy regimes. This is likely only the first wave of regulation and employers should anticipate further changes and developments in both the near and long term.

While other states are beginning to legislate in this area—for example, Connecticut’s Public Act 26-15 which requires employers filing federal WARN notices with the state to indicate whether layoffs relate to AI or other technological change, and Colorado (SB 26-189) and Illinois (HB 3773) which also regulate the use of AI in employment decisions—California’s legislative efforts in this area are the most comprehensive to date, and will likely be closely watched and followed nationwide.

Employers seeking advice on the use of AI and automated tools in the workplace, employee monitoring and privacy, ADS governance, and federal WARN and Cal-WARN compliance are invited to reach out to King & Spalding’s Global Human Capital and Compliance practice to learn more about how these new laws may apply to their organization.