California’s Assembly Bill 1883, authored by Assemblymember Isaac Bryan (D-Inglewood), would prohibit employers from collecting brain data from workers unless the collection is used for safety purposes. The bill has cleared the Assembly and moved most of the way through the Senate, per CalMatters’ tracking on 10 August 2026 by reporter Khari Johnson.
A parallel Assembly Bill 1542, authored by Assemblymember Christopher Ward (D-San Diego), would expand California’s existing consumer privacy law to prohibit the sale of sensitive personal information including neural data. Both bills are currently in the Senate.
What California already has
California’s baseline neural-data protection dates to Senate Bill 1223, signed by Governor Newsom on 28 September 2024 and effective 1 January 2025. That law amended the California Consumer Privacy Act to add neural data to the category of sensitive personal information subject to enhanced protection. This is California’s current enacted neural-data protection.
A subsequent Senate Bill 7 in 2025, co-authored by Senator Jerry McNerney (D-Stockton), had originally included expanded automated-decision-system provisions covering neural data. Neural data references were stripped by amendment during the legislative process, and Newsom vetoed the amended bill on 13 October 2025 for being overly broad.
The current cycle’s AB 1883 and AB 1542 pick up the workplace and data-sale angles left open by the SB 7 veto.
The California Privacy Protection Agency package
The California Privacy Protection Agency (CPPA) approved a CCPA amendments package covering Automated Decision-Making Technology (ADMT), risk assessments, cybersecurity audits, insurance company rules, and updates to existing CCPA regulations, with Office of Administrative Law approval on 23 September 2025. The package’s general provisions took effect 1 January 2026. The ADMT significant-decision compliance deadline is 1 January 2027.
The ADMT rules cover businesses using AI systems, including systems using brain data, to make significant decisions about consumers. Full compliance on that specific provision is required from the January 2027 date.
AB 1883’s workplace-specific prohibition
AB 1883 prohibits workplace neural-data collection by default. SB 1223 permitted it with consent. AB 1883 as currently drafted flips the default to prohibited unless the use is for worker safety.
Named workplace neurotech products in the coverage:
Hitachi’s SmartCap brain-monitoring headband, deployed in trucking and mining fatigue detection. Emotiv’s EEG earbuds, with named enterprise engagements framed by Emotiv Chief Commercial Officer Kim Old as experiments rather than deployments. SAP explored training personalisation, Dell explored break scheduling, and JLL explored whether office layouts influence employee performance. Cognixion’s ONE Axon-R augmented-reality headset, framed by founder and CEO Andreas Forsland as accessibility-first.
Neither Neuralink nor Science Corporation, both California-headquartered, is quoted.
AB 1542 and the sale-of-neural-data angle
AB 1542 would prohibit sale of sensitive personal information including neural data under California’s existing privacy law. This complements the workplace-collection prohibition in AB 1883 by closing off downstream commercialisation of any neural data that is collected legitimately.
Stephen Damianos of the Neurorights Foundation is quoted citing a 2024 consumer neurotech report finding that approximately two-thirds of surveyed companies allow third-party data sharing.
Opposition and industry positioning
Named opposition to AB 1883: local governments, assisted-living operators, grocers, hospitals, and wine growers. Their argument is that the bill is too broad and would block tools currently used for safe driving, theft detection, and monitoring inappropriate employee behaviour toward customers. Sara Flocks of the California Labor Federation is quoted on the labour-support side.
Emotiv’s Old is on record stating that neural data deserves sensitive treatment and should be collected with consent. Cognixion frames its approach as accessibility-first.
Nita Farahany, Duke professor and author of “The Battle for Your Brain,” advises lawmakers on mental privacy protections and is quoted in the piece.
The state-patchwork landscape, updated
California joining a stricter workplace-neural-data regime through AB 1883 would sharpen the US state-patchwork posture Issue 01 documented. Existing enacted state neural-data protections cover California (2024 baseline via SB 1223 effective 2025), Colorado (2024), Montana (2025), and Connecticut (SB 1295 in force 1 July 2026).
Vermont has moved fastest on the neural-data axis in 2026. Governor Phil Scott signed Vermont H.814 in May 2026, establishing neurological rights and extending the state AI Advisory Council through 2030. Vermont’s broader comprehensive consumer privacy law, S.71, was signed on 16 June 2026, adding Vermont to the state comprehensive-privacy roster (sources differ on whether it is the 23rd or 24th such statute depending on counting methodology) and including neural data among the categories of sensitive data. Our own 7 May 2026 InsideBCI coverage tracked H.814 clearing the Vermont Senate; the subsequent gubernatorial signature and S.71 enactment complete the Vermont picture.
States with pending 2026 bills: Alabama, Illinois, New York, and Virginia.
UNESCO adopted its first global neural-data Recommendation on 11 November 2025. Canada’s Office of the Privacy Commissioner issued a February 2026 PIPEDA interpretation bulletin extending Canadian federal privacy protection to neural data.
What to watch
First, whether AB 1883 and AB 1542 pass their remaining Senate stages and reach Governor Newsom’s desk this session. Given Newsom vetoed the broader SB 7 in October 2025, the risk of a workplace-specific bill being similarly rejected is real. The narrower carve-out structure of AB 1883 (safety-use exception) may improve its odds.
Second, whether the California Privacy Protection Agency uses its existing SB 1223 authority to enforce against a named neural-data operator before the ADMT compliance deadline lands on 1 January 2027. Named enforcement action against a California-headquartered consumer neurotech operator would move the state-patchwork posture from paper protection to operational chokepoint.