Legal Insights
“Can you turn your camera on?” It is a familiar request in the era of remote work, and one that raises a more consequential question than it might first appear: does an employer have a legal right to require it? As hybrid and remote arrangements become permanent fixtures of the modern workplace, employers face increasing pressure to balance legitimate monitoring interests with employee privacy. Maine may have just provided an answer.
Introduction
In July 2026, the State of Maine’s LD 61 came into effect with broad implications for the workforce. See 26 M.R.S. § 620-A. This new law provides some contours to what an employer can surveil from an employee’s work phone, computer, or device. Maine joins Delaware, Connecticut, and New York in efforts to regulate employer surveillance in the workplace. Now, in the world of remote work and hybrid schedules, it is imperative that Maine employers understand some of the contours this new law provides.
An Act to Regulate Employer Surveillance to Protect Workers
The Law, titled “An Act to Regulate Employer Surveillance to Protect Workers”, applies broadly to Maine employers, including public and private sector employers. It defines employer surveillance as “the monitoring of an employee by an employer through the use of an electronic device or system” and it includes computers, phones, Wi-Fi data, or cellular data.
The law aims to protect workers from monitoring, mainly through electronic devices. The statute provides the following guidelines:
- An employer cannot use any audiovisual monitoring in an employee’s residence, personal vehicle, or property UNLESS audiovisual monitoring is required by the employer pursuant to the job duties.
- An employer cannot use any employer surveillance tool without any prior notice to employees.
- An employer MUST inform a prospective employee during the interview process that the employer utilizes employer surveillance tools.
- An employer MUST provide written notice to all current employees at least once per calendar year that the employer utilizes surveillance tools.
- An employer cannot require an employee to install a data collection application or a tracking application on their personal devices, and employees can decline such a request BUT this does not include any employer-provided electronic devices.
The law provides limited exemptions. Surveillance cameras used for security or safety purposes are carved out, as is GPS tracking or other safety devices owned by the employer but utilized by the employee. Also exempt is surveillance in the context of personal care services provided by a licensed personal care agency, defined as “services related to activities of daily living, household tasks, and medication reminders.” Where such services are delivered, surveillance used by patients, clients, or unpaid caregivers falls outside the scope of the law.
The Maine Department of Labor will enforce the law. Employers found in violation face fines ranging from $100 to $500 per violation.
While the law appears straightforward, several implementation questions remain. For example, the law prohibits audiovisual monitoring of an employee unless it is required pursuant to the employee’s job duties. What would constitute such a job duty? If an employee using personal devices for work declines tracking applications, but the employer’s job duties require audiovisual monitoring, which provision controls? Would employers prefer to provide employer-owned devices to all employees to avoid an employee declining a data-collection application? Human resources departments should be cognizant of these questions and the law’s implications for everyday business practices.
How Other States Handle Employer Monitoring Laws
It is noted that only three other states currently have a similar employer monitoring law: New York, Delaware, and Connecticut. While Maine does provide some substantive limitations, other states focus more heavily on notice requirements for employees.
For example, in Connecticut, employers must post workplace notices (Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 31-48d). In New York, there must be written notice provided to employees upon hiring, and an employer must obtain written or electronic acknowledgement of the notice (N.Y. Civ. Rights Law § 52-c). Delaware law states that an employer must provide either a daily notice with no employee acknowledgement OR a one-time written notice that an employee must acknowledge (Del. Code Ann. tit. 19 § 705). All three states, and now four with the addition of Maine, heavily lean on the notices an employer must give to its employees.
Other states are grappling with similar issues. In Michigan, House Bill No. 5579, introduced in 2026 in the 103rd Michigan Legislature, aims to curb employee monitoring and provide greater transparency regarding artificial intelligence (“AI”) tools in the workplace. Titled the “Responsible Artificial Intelligence Security for Employees Act,” the bill offers a comprehensive framework for how employers should and should not use AI in employment-related decisions. California has also seen legislative activity in this space. A 2025 bill sought to limit employee monitoring and restrict employers’ use of workforce surveillance tools, but it did not pass the Senate. More recently, California introduced Assembly Bill No. 1883 in 2026, which seeks to regulate workplace surveillance tools and employers’ use of employee data. While neither bill has been enacted, both reflect a growing recognition of the connection between employer surveillance and AI tools in the workplace.
Employer Surveillance and AI Tools in the Workplace
As AI tools become increasingly embedded in workplace operations, understanding Maine’s new law in this context is essential. Although LD 61 does not specifically reference AI, its broad definition of employer surveillance can reasonably be read to encompass AI-driven monitoring tools. Employers should carefully audit the tools being used for workplace surveillance and determine whether each falls within the scope of the law or qualifies for one of the limited exemptions.
While Maine, Connecticut, New York, and Delaware have enacted laws regarding employer workplace surveillance, a broader question remains: how should employers navigate the AI-powered tools increasingly used for monitoring? Several states have begun addressing this by regulating AI in employment decision-making. In New York City, Local Law 144 requires employers and employment agencies to conduct audits of automated employment decision tools (“AEDT”), publish a summary of the bias audit results, and notify candidates whether AEDT is used, how it will be used, and what data may be collected. In Illinois, a recent amendment to the Illinois Human Rights Act prohibits employers from using AI tools that could result in discrimination on the basis of a protected class or that use a zip code as a proxy for a protected class, and it imposes a corresponding notice requirement. This amendment took effect on January 1, 2026. See Illinois Human Rights Act, previously HB 3773. Most recently, Connecticut enacted the Connecticut Artificial Intelligence Responsibility and Transparency Act (“CART Act”), which addresses AI in the employment and workforce decision-making process, among other areas including healthcare and online safety.
Whether it is workplace surveillance, employer monitoring tools, or the use of AI in employment-decision making, one stark trend has become increasingly apparent across the country: employers need to become more proactive to strike a balance between workplace surveillance and the tools utilized in the process. Maine’s new law, like those in Connecticut, New York, and Delaware, signals a broader regulatory shift that is likely to accelerate. As AI continues to develop and companies are turning towards more automated tools to modernize and efficiently run the workplace, all employers need to understand how AI is shaping that process and what they can and cannot do with the tools available.
What Employers Should Do Now to Comply
With the enactment of laws like LD 61, employers should prioritize an immediate audit of their employee handbooks and management practices. This includes identifying all surveillance applications and tools currently in use. Employers that have not already done so should prepare the required disclosures without delay, including disclosures during the interview process and the annual notices that must be provided to all employees. Before implementing any new surveillance tool, employers must ensure all necessary disclosures are in place. For businesses operating in multiple states, each state’s notice requirements should be carefully incorporated into existing procedures, with attention to the interplay between the various state employer monitoring laws. Equally important, all employers should remain cognizant of the evolving role of AI in the workplace and evaluate whether any tools currently in use fall within the scope of these laws.
While these laws do not outright eliminate employer monitoring, they do require transparency. The disclosure obligations aim to bring monitoring practices out from behind the shadows. So, to return to the question posed at the outset: does an employer have a legal right to require an employee to turn their camera on? As with many legal questions, it depends. An employer may still be able to require it, but only with the proper notices in place first.
——————————————————————–
This DarrowEverett Insight should not be construed as legal advice or a legal opinion. This Insight is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, a lawyer-client relationship. The contents are intended for general informational purposes only, and you are urged to consult your attorney concerning any particular situation and any specific legal question you may have. Please reach out to us if you need help addressing any of the issues discussed in this Insight, or any other issues or concerns you may have relating to your business. We are ready to help guide you through these challenging times.
This Insight does not constitute written tax advice as described in 31 C.F.R. §10, et seq. and is not intended or written by us to be used and/or relied on as written tax advice for any purpose including, without limitation, the marketing of any transaction addressed herein. Any U.S. federal tax advice rendered by DarrowEverett LLP shall be conspicuously labeled as such, shall include a discussion of all relevant facts and circumstances, as well as of any representations, statements, findings, or agreements (including projections, financial forecasts, or appraisals) upon which we rely, applicable to transactions discussed therein in compliance with 31 C.F.R. §10.37, shall relate the applicable law and authorities to the facts, and shall set forth any applicable limits on the use of such advice.