Today’s workers may have more flexibility than ever, but with the rise of employer surveillance, they also have less privacy. Remote and office workers often need to download keyloggers and work trackers that record keystrokes and mouse clicks. Offices and warehouses alike are monitored by cameras, and delivery drivers face cameras, GPS tracking, and monitoring for every stop.
Federal law offers limited guidance on modern employer surveillance, but state laws are catching up. This January, Maine joined the states that regulate employers’ ability to surveil their workers. What do these laws say, and are they enough to protect workers while giving employers the oversight they need?
Maine’s New Law on Employer Surveillance
In response to concerns about employee privacy, the Maine legislature passed An Act to Regulate Employer Surveillance to Protect Workers, an employment law that took effect on January 11, 2026. In part, the law provides that:
- A worker can refuse monitoring software on their personal devices
- Employers generally cannot require workers to put cameras in their homes or personal vehicles unless the recording is part of the job
- Employers have to provide ongoing written notice to job applicants and current employees that they will use most types of electronic surveillance, such as keylogging and other software, before doing so
There are important exceptions to the new law. Surveillance cameras are still permissible for safety purposes. Personal care services are also exempt when a patient is alone with a caregiver.
Employers breaking the law could face penalties of $100 to $500 from the Maine Department of Labor. Preventing an employee from following the law is a separate violation.
Other State and US Laws
A number of state laws provide protections for employees that are similar, and in some cases broader, than Maine’s. Connecticut and New York require conspicuously-posted notices about employee surveillance. California and Illinois have some of the strongest protections, as California gives employees at large corporations the same state privacy rights as consumers and regulates the business use of fingerprints or photos of their employees. Illinois also regulates biometrics and forbids employers from demanding social media account information.
Federal law does not specifically address today’s surveillance technologies in the workplace. The core framework in federal law still comes from the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986, enacted before most businesses used the internet.
Case law provides that an employer can generally monitor business communications on company devices, though the employees should have notice. Without consent, they cannot read or listen to communications if the employee has a “reasonable expectation of privacy.” In City of Ontario v. Quon, a Fourth Amendment case, the Supreme Court found a city’s search of a police officer’s text messages was lawful, as they were on a city-provided pager with a clear policy on internet use.
Policy and the Future of Workplace Surveillance
Many employers have a legitimate interest in keeping a close eye on their employees. That is why Maine made an exception for personal care workers, as they take care of vulnerable patients in a home setting. Yet workers, especially in warehouses and multinational corporations, continue to report invasive surveillance intended to discourage organizing or regulate their movements.
As technology improves, AI and algorithms increase the power of monitoring software, but researchers find that excessive monitoring saps workplace morale and productivity. In a struggling economy, legislators will need to balance competing interests as soon as possible.
Related Resources
- TikTok’s Privacy Policy Has Changed. Should Users Be Worried? (FindLaw's Law and Daily Life)
- 3 Things To Do Before You Accept a Job Offer (FindLaw’s Law and Daily Life)
- FTC Warns Job Seekers About Scammers on the Prowl (FindLaw's Law and Daily Life)
