By BTI Group | Published October 2026
California just made the rules for workplace AI much stricter. On September 30, 2026, the governor signed new laws that cover how employers use artificial intelligence and automated tools in layoffs, employee monitoring, discipline and termination. In a legal update dated October 9, 2026, Seyfarth Shaw LLP Senior Counsel Yana Komsitsky explains that California “has enacted three new laws governing employer use of artificial intelligence and automated tools.” She also points out that the laws are separate from the CCPA’s automated decisionmaking technology (ADMT) rules and reach employers the CCPA does not.
Here is BTI Group’s view: these laws will not stay in California. We expect them to become a model that many states copy, because limiting “robo bosses” and AI surveillance is politically popular, and lawmakers in other states are already working on similar bills. Below we summarize what the laws require, lay out the evidence behind our view, and explain how to get ready for workplace AI compliance across multiple states.
Not legal advice: This article is for general information only and is not legal advice. Talk to qualified employment counsel about your specific obligations.
What California Enacted: A Summary of the Three Laws
1. SB 951: AI disclosures in Cal/WARN layoff notices (effective January 1, 2027)
Cal/WARN generally requires 60 days’ advance notice of a covered mass layoff, relocation or termination. Under SB 951, if AI or automation causes all or a substantial part of a covered event, the employer has to add specific information to the notices it sends to affected employees and to the Employment Development Department (EDD). That information includes the statement “This notice is for a technology displacement” at the top, the number, job classification and work location of affected employees, the job functions being automated, and the category of technology that caused the displacement. Seyfarth notes that Cal/WARN violations “may result in civil penalties of up to $500 per day.”
2. AB 1883: Limits on AI-enabled workplace surveillance (effective January 1, 2027)
AB 1883 bars private and public employers from using AI-enabled surveillance tools to infer or predict an employee’s emotional state, or to collect neural data. The definition of a covered tool is wide. Seyfarth lists “video and audio surveillance, time tracking, geolocation” among the examples. The law covers private employers, government bodies, and California’s public university systems. It includes limited exceptions for certain safety, aircraft, national security, military, space and defense purposes. Remedies include injunctions, punitive damages, attorneys’ fees, and “civil penalties of up to $500 per violation,” and violations may also create exposure under PAGA.
3. SB 947, the No Robo Bosses Act: Human review of discipline and termination (effective July 1, 2027)
Under SB 947, an employer “may not rely solely on an ADS when making a disciplinary or termination decision.” If an employer primarily relies on the output of an automated decision system (ADS), a human has to corroborate the decision with supporting evidence, and the employer cannot use output that is inaccurate, incomplete or misleading. The employee must receive a separate plain-language written notice with a human contact, and can request a description of the data the ADS used. The burden falls on the employer: Seyfarth writes that “it will be the employer’s duty to establish compliance.” Penalties match AB 1883, up to $500 per violation, plus injunctive relief, punitive damages and fees.
BTI’s View: Why California’s Approach Will Spread
The following is BTI Group’s opinion, built on public evidence we were able to verify.
The issue is easy to explain and hard to argue against
“A computer shouldn’t be able to fire you without a human checking its work” fits in one sentence. Few legislators want to vote against it publicly, and few want to defend software that guesses at employees’ emotions. In our view, the combination of AI anxiety, job security and privacy gives lawmakers in both parties a reason to act, and that is the usual recipe for model legislation.
Other states are already moving in the same direction
- New York: In March 2025, the New York State Department of Labor added a question to its WARN filing system asking whether “technological innovation or automation” contributed to a layoff (Hunton Andrews Kurth). Senate Bill S8928 would put a similar AI-layoff disclosure into the WARN statute itself. This is the same concept as California’s SB 951.
- Illinois: HB 3773 (Public Act 103-0804), in effect since January 1, 2026, makes discriminatory use of AI in employment decisions a civil rights violation and requires employers to give notice when they use AI (Gibson Dunn).
- Massachusetts, Vermont and Washington: The UC Berkeley Labor Center reports that Massachusetts’ FAIR Act and similar bills in Vermont and Washington would put guardrails on algorithmic management. It also notes that none of them had been enacted as of its review (UC Berkeley Labor Center).
- A growing patchwork: Morgan Lewis writes that California “joins jurisdictions including Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, and New York City” in regulating AI used in employment decisions (Morgan Lewis).
- Federal attention: CNBC reports that Senators Ed Markey and Brian Schatz introduced federal legislation with the same “No Robot Bosses” name (CNBC).
California sets templates
California’s privacy laws influenced privacy legislation in other states, and its workplace AI laws come with ready-made definitions, notice content and enforcement models. We expect drafters elsewhere to borrow from them. We don’t expect identical copies. Seyfarth notes that SB 947 is already narrower than comparable laws in Colorado and the EU. That variation is exactly why multi-site organizations should build one adaptable program now, instead of reacting to each state separately.
What This Means for Regulated, Multi-Site Organizations
The laws reach further than most teams expect. Covered tools include video systems, time tracking, geolocation, productivity dashboards, and contact-center analytics that score agent “sentiment” or “engagement.” In BTI’s experience, these capabilities often sit inside platforms owned by IT, security, facilities and operations, and nobody has a single inventory of them.
Seyfarth recommends three practical steps: “identify covered tools and decisions, assign responsibility, and put the required controls and notices in place.” Here is how we would turn that into a technical program:
- Inventory every monitoring and analytics feature, including AI analytics in video surveillance and access control, wellness and wearable tools, and quality-management or speech-analytics features in your contact center.
- Turn off or reconfigure prohibited functions, such as emotion, stress, fatigue or attentiveness inference, before January 1, 2027, and document any exception you rely on.
- Build human-in-the-loop workflows for any automated score that feeds into discipline or termination, and keep the output, the underlying data, who reviewed it, and the final decision.
- Govern data access and retention so you can produce “a meaningful, objective description” of the employee data an ADS used when someone asks for it.
- Design for multiple states, so policies and configurations can be adjusted by location as other states act.
How BTI Group Helps
BTI Group has been in business since 1985, more than 40 years, and has delivered security solutions since the 2010s. We are ISO 27001 compliant and work with regulated, high-security, multi-site mid-market organizations from offices in Los Angeles, Chicagoland and Phoenix. Where these laws touch technology, we can help:
- AI governance and security: Our AI security, governance and risk services help you inventory AI tools, define human-review controls, and document decisions. Leadership teams can find more in our posts on CEO AI strategy and governance and the agentic organization AI gap.
- Compliance and GRC: Our governance, risk and compliance, IT compliance and vCISO services turn legal requirements into policies, controls and evidence.
- Physical security, video and access control: We review analytics settings on video surveillance and access control systems so that security use cases stay in place and prohibited inference features stay off.
- Cybersecurity and managed IT: Our cybersecurity and managed IT services protect the sensitive employee data these laws put under scrutiny, with logging and retention that support audits.
- Communications: For Microsoft Teams and contact center environments, we help you review which AI analytics features score employees.
Frequently Asked Questions
When do California’s new workplace AI laws take effect?
According to Seyfarth, SB 951 (Cal/WARN AI disclosures) and AB 1883 (AI surveillance limits) take effect January 1, 2027. SB 947, the No Robo Bosses Act, takes effect July 1, 2027.
Do these laws apply to employers not covered by the CCPA?
Yes. Seyfarth explains that the laws are separate from the CCPA ADMT rules and apply more broadly, including to public entities. Employers covered by both must comply with both.
Does AB 1883 ban video surveillance?
No. It prohibits using AI-enabled surveillance tools to infer an employee’s emotional state or to collect neural data. Video is listed as a covered tool type, so you should review AI analytics features on cameras.
What are the penalties?
Cal/WARN violations can bring civil penalties of up to $500 per day. AB 1883 and SB 947 allow civil penalties of up to $500 per violation, plus injunctions, punitive damages and attorneys’ fees, as summarized by Seyfarth.
Will other states adopt similar laws?
That is BTI’s view. New York, Illinois, Massachusetts, Vermont and Washington have already acted on or proposed related measures. Outcomes will vary by state, so multi-state employers should build adaptable compliance programs.
Talk to a BTI Business Advisor
January 1, 2027 is close. If you’re not sure which of your video, monitoring, analytics or communications tools fall under these laws, or how to build human review into AI-assisted decisions, contact a BTI business advisor for a workplace AI compliance readiness review.
Source credit: Yana Komsitsky, “California Just Expanded Regulation of Workplace AI Beyond CCPA ADMT,” Seyfarth Shaw LLP, October 9, 2026. Quotes are reproduced with attribution. This post reflects BTI Group’s opinions and is not legal advice.
