To the California Privacy Protection Agency: Workers need privacy protections as AI surveillance expands
Californians sought to safeguard their data when they voted in favor of an initiative that passed the California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA), which also created the California Privacy Protection Agency (CalPrivacy, or the CPPA) to enforce these rights. CalPrivacy’s data protections cover Californians both as consumers and as employees.
California has a historic opportunity to protect workers from the harms of AI-powered surveillance and data collection in the workplace. But it will require CalPrivacy to recognize workers as key stakeholders who deserve meaningful protections.
In November 2025, CalPrivacy indicated possible interest in exploring additional rulemaking that may potentially relate to employee data. The consideration of additional rulemaking follows regulations related to automated decision-making technology (ADMTs) that were finalized by CalPrivacy this year, and that also cover workers. You can read more about how TechEquity weighed in throughout the rulemaking process here. Our Senior Vice President of Labor Programs, Tim Newman, shared comments with the CalPrivacy Board urging stronger privacy protections for California workers. As companies increasingly deploy “agentic AI” tools that can initiate actions based on worker data, and as automated surveillance continues to spread across the workforce, the stakes have become even higher.
Below are his remarks provided at the CalPrivacy Board meeting on November 7, 2025.
Tim Newman’s Comment
Good afternoon. My name is Tim Newman. I’m providing comments for TechEquity, particularly on potential rulemaking activities related to employee data.
The need for stronger protections for workers is significant – and likely increasing. For example, data collection, automated surveillance, and monitoring are widespread across the workforce and “are strongly related to negative health and safety outcomes for U.S. workers,” according to a national survey published by the Washington Center for Equitable Growth. Hundreds of tech products identified by Coworker.org are “collecting and aggregating data about workers at almost every step of the labor process.” The data that is collected on employees is used to make highly consequential decisions that impact Californians both at work and throughout all sectors of their lives. And now, companies are increasingly marketing “agentic AI” tools that they claim have the capability to initiate and execute actions based on data collected from workers.
However, the National Employment Law Project notes that “businesses’ increased adoption of new surveillance technologies threatens the efficacy of a wide range of existing legal protections for workers and exploits missing protections in other areas.”
Even CalPrivacy’s regulations related to ADMTs allow almost all companies to avoid accountability, exempting 90% of entities covered by this agency. As you further explore this topic, we encourage Board members to review recommendations previously submitted collectively by 45 different organizations and unions, including TechEquity, in January of this year, for ideas on how to strengthen regulations related to employee data.
Californian workers are concerned about the impact of AI on their livelihoods. Recent polling commissioned by TechEquity found that a majority of Californians, 55%, are more concerned about the future of AI than excited. 59% are concerned that the benefits of AI will accrue only to the wealthiest and to corporations.
Over two-thirds of Californians want the government to establish safeguards around AI systems – and personal privacy is one of their top concerns. And workers want a voice: Polling by Gallup found “U.S. employees who say they have a lot of influence over which technologies are adopted in their workplace are more than twice as likely to report high job satisfaction.”
To ensure that rulemaking effectively meets the needs of workers, meaningful consultation is necessary. In the work setting, harms from the collection and use of worker data result from the power imbalance between employers and employees. This same principle applies to the regulatory process: industry associations representing employers and the tech companies that profit from the widespread collection and use of employee data have enormous resources and influence when compared to workers.
We have previously shared our perspective that CalPrivacy’s recent regulations related to ADMTs and risk assessments were weakened with every successive round of industry lobbying. Moving forward, we hope for a robust engagement process with unions, experts, and impacted communities to ensure that any rulemaking process is responsive to the realities of working people.
CalPrivacy can continue to be a leader for the nation, as the only state privacy regulator in the United States. We encourage the board to use your mandate and authority to deliver protections for workers.
We look forward to continuing to engage with the CalPrivacy board, director and staff to ensure robust protections for California’s workers. Thank you for the opportunity to comment today – and welcome to Board member Hamer.
–
Read our Guiding Policy Principles for Responsible AI to learn more about how we can build guardrails around the industry’s fastest-growing technology.