Two states, one week: what changed for cameras at work

Where we left it

In our September post on California's sixteen AI bills, none were law. They sat with the governor. Two of them are now law, and Connecticut's monitoring law started the next day.

September 30: California

Governor Newsom signed AB 1331 and AB 1883 on September 30, per the governor's office, Ogletree and KQED.

AB 1331 bars employers from using workplace surveillance tools to monitor or surveil employees in workplace bathrooms. Ogletree's summary adds that a badge or personal alarm system for bathroom access is allowed if it has no audio or video recording and no embedded AI.

AB 1883 bars workplace surveillance tools that use AI to recognize, or make inferences or predictions about, an employee's emotional state, or that collect neural data. Ogletree's summary describes a surveillance tool broadly: anything that collects employee data other than by direct observation by a human, including video, audio and geolocation. It also notes that the law permits tools used to ensure safety.

Penalties are civil, up to $500 per violation, with possible exposure under California's private attorneys general act. The summaries we read give no effective date, and they are not the text of the bills.

October 1: Connecticut

Public Act 26-73 (SB 472) updates Connecticut's electronic monitoring notice rules. As summarized by Workplace Privacy Report, employers must give all employees prior written notice of the types of monitoring and the specific locations on the premises where it may occur, and new hires must get a plain-language statement.

The location requirement does not apply where the employer has reasonable grounds to monitor for security and employee safety purposes, or where the premises are an airport. Civil penalties for notice violations are $500, then $1,000, then $3,000 for the third and later offenses.

What the two have in common

Both draw the line at purpose, and both leave room for safety. As summarized, neither makes the word a blanket exemption.

Connecticut's exemption is from the location disclosure only. The notice that monitoring exists, and of what kind, still applies. California's summaries describe the safety allowance in one clause, and the bill text is where its exact reach is set.

A safety purpose is a purpose that has to be stated, and the statement has to be true.

Where DHI sits

DHI sells software that watches people at work, so we read these as a vendor. Our headline use cases are safety events: a person on a track, a person down, smoke. Whether a given site's use qualifies under either law is for the operator and its counsel, and nothing here is legal advice.

A test you can run on a Friday

Take a list of the cameras in a facility and write one sentence next to each: its safety purpose. If a sentence cannot be written, that is the finding.

If a regulator asked you today for the safety purpose of each camera in your facility, could you write that sentence?

Sources

• Office of Governor Newsom, September 30, 2026
• Ogletree Deakins, "California Governor Signs 3 Bills Targeting AI and Workplace Surveillance," October 1, 2026
• KQED, "Newsom Signs Slate of AI Workplace Laws, Barring 'Robo Bosses' and Surveillance," October 1, 2026
• Workplace Privacy Report, "Deadline Imminent for Connecticut's Expanded Electronic Monitoring Law," September 10, 2026
• Recording Law, Connecticut electronic monitoring notice law, September 18, 2026