Workplace surveillance tools.

The entire amendment to Labor Code Section 1102.5 (whistleblower protection) was removed from the bill. The bill no longer makes any changes to existing whistleblower disclosure and anti-retaliation provisions.

The definition of 'workplace surveillance tool' was expanded to include tools that surveil the public but are also capable of passively surveilling workers.

New definition of 'neural data' added: information generated by measuring the activity of an individual's central or peripheral nervous system that is not inferred from nonneural information.

Section 1553(a)(4) now prohibits surveillance tools incorporating 'neural data collection' in addition to facial recognition, gait recognition, and emotion recognition technology.

Section 1552(b)(2) now requires a valid court order before an employer or vendor can share worker data with law enforcement, replacing the previous broader 'unless required by law' standard.

Section 1552(b)(1) narrows sharing with state or local government to cases where it is necessary for a governmental agency investigation of a failure to comply with a specific state law that the agency is responsible for enforcing.

New contract term (Section 1552(a)(4)) prohibits vendors from transferring, selling, disclosing, licensing, or distributing any product resulting from their analysis or interpretation of worker data, except to provide the agreed-upon product to the employer.

The word 'disclose' was added alongside 'transfer, sell, or license' in Section 1552(a), broadening the types of data sharing that are restricted.

New Section 1552(i) requires employers to collect, use, and retain worker data only that is reasonably necessary and proportionate to the disclosed purposes - a data minimization principle.

Section 1553(b) was restructured. When surveillance data 'contributes to' (not just is 'primarily relied upon for') a disciplinary or discharge decision, the employer must notify the worker, provide access to surveillance and corroborating data, allow correction of erroneous data within 24 hours, and change the decision if the correction validates it.

New Section 1551(e)(8) requires the notice to include a written policy informing workers about how they can access their worker data.

Section 1552(h) now requires employers to make a digital or paper form available to workers within five business days of a request to access, correct, or obtain worker data.

The fiscal committee vote changed from 'no' to 'yes,' indicating the bill now requires fiscal committee review, likely due to the expanded enforcement and compliance obligations.

The definition of 'worker' was narrowed. The old version included 'a natural person or that person's authorized representative acting as a job applicant to, an employee of, or an independent contractor.' The new version removes job applicants and authorized representatives, leaving only 'a natural person, an employee of, or an independent contractor providing service to, or through, a business or a state or local governmental entity in a workplace.'

The protected activity provision was broadened. The old text prohibited identifying workers 'engaging in activity protected by state or federal labor law.' The new text removes the word 'labor,' so it now covers activity protected by any state or federal law, not just labor law.

Assembly Member Lowenthal was added as a coauthor alongside Assembly Members Bryan and Elhawary.

A facial recognition exception was added. The old version flatly prohibited any workplace surveillance tool incorporating facial recognition technology. The new version allows facial recognition 'unless it is used strictly to open a locked device or grant access to locked or secured areas,' creating a carve-out for physical security and access control uses.

A new standalone prohibition (Section 1553(a)(2)) was added that specifically bars an employer from using a workplace surveillance tool to infer a worker's immigration status, veteran status, ancestral history, religious or political beliefs, health or reproductive status, emotional or psychological state, neural data, sexual or gender orientation, disability status, criminal record, credit history, or any status protected under Government Code Section 12940. While similar categories appeared in the old version's list of prohibited tools, this creates a separate inference-specific prohibition.

Workers' data rights were narrowed. The old version required employers to allow workers to 'access and correct worker data and obtain worker data.' The new version only requires employers to allow workers to 'correct inaccurate worker data and obtain worker data,' removing the general right of access and limiting correction to cases where data is actually inaccurate.

The civil action provision was expanded. The old version allowed employees to sue for 'damages caused by that adverse action.' The new version allows suits for 'damages caused by that adverse action, violation,' broadening the basis on which a worker can bring a private civil action.

The document was reformatted from a printed legislative style (with line numbers, page headers/footers, and centered title blocks) to a web page layout including site navigation links, a quick search box, version selector dropdown, and share buttons. The underlying bill text is identical.