A Democratic bill with 6 Democratic cosponsors · See all 7 cosponsors
Last activity — Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
The "Stop Spying Bosses Act" aims to limit how employers collect and use data from their workers and job applicants. It prohibits surveillance for certain purposes, such as tracking labor union activities or monitoring employees while off-duty. Employers must disclose what data they collect and how it affects work-related decisions. The bill establishes the Worker Protection and Technology Division within the Department of Labor to oversee these rules. It also provides workers with the right to access and correct their data and the ability to sue for violations.
Yes· 3 of 34
- Scored +10
Does this protect people from being watched or searched?
Strongly expands privacy rights for employees, including off-duty and biometric protections.
- Scored +9
Would union members be better off under this?
Prohibits surveillance of union activities and protects concerted action.
- Scored +9
Does this give people more control over their personal data?
Establishes strict data minimization, disclosure, and access rights for worker data.
The opposite· 3 of 4
- Scored -8
Does this give the government more power to monitor people inside the country?
Directly limits and prohibits various forms of domestic surveillance in the workplace.
- Scored -7
Would business owners be better off under this?
Increases compliance costs and legal liabilities for employers.
- Scored -5
Does this make it easier to run a small business?
Imposes significant compliance burdens and potential high statutory damages on employers with 11 or more employees.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
- Privacy Protections: Prohibits employers from collecting data to identify union activities, political opinions, religious views, or health status unrelated to job duties (Section 3(a)(1)).
- Off-Duty Privacy: Stops employers from collecting data when workers are off-duty, specifically in restrooms, locker rooms, prayer areas, or their homes (Section 3(a)(2)).
- Transparency: Requires employers to tell workers what data is being collected, how it is collected, and how it affects decisions about their performance or productivity (Section 4(a)).
- Data Control: Gives workers the right to obtain their collected data and correct any information that is erroneous or incomplete (Section 5(a)).
- Whistleblower Protection: Forbids employers from retaliating or discriminating against workers who exercise their rights under this Act or report violations (Section 8(a)).
- Legal Recourse: Allows affected individuals to sue in federal court for damages, including statutory damages and attorney's fees (Section 9(a)(3)(B)).
- Protection from Forced Arbitration: Makes predispute arbitration agreements and joint-action waivers invalid for violations of this Act (Section 9(g)).
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- Employer Burdens: Employers must follow strict data minimization rules, ensuring collection is the "least invasive means" and limiting retention to generally 3 years after separation (Section 3(b)).
- Operational Requirements: Employers are required to provide detailed, plain-language disclosures in the primary language of the worker and make them accessible to people with disabilities (Section 4(c)).
- Financial Risk for Employers: Employers may face significant statutory damages, ranging from $5,000 to $100,000 depending on the violation and if it was willful (Section 9(a)(3)(B)(iv)).
- Liability for Third Parties: Employers can be held responsible for violations committed by their service providers if the employer knew or should have known about the violation (Section 9(f)).
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would union members be better off under this? — Prohibits surveillance of union activities and protects concerted action. Would immigrants be better off under this? — Prohibits employers from collecting data to ascertain immigration status. Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — Provides legal protections and statutory damages for workers who are often more vulnerable to surveillance. Would people with disabilities be better off under this? — Prohibits collection of disability status unrelated to job duties and requires accessible disclosures. Would LGBTQ people be better off under this? — Protects identity markers from being collected for non-job-related purposes. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — Increases workplace privacy and data control. Would women be better off under this? — Specifically protects privacy in breast milk expression locations. Would Black Americans be better off under this? — Prohibits use of identity markers for surveillance and provides protections against discriminatory data collection. Would Asian Americans be better off under this? — Prohibits use of identity markers for surveillance. Would Hispanic Americans be better off under this? — Prohibits use of identity markers for surveillance and prohibits collection of immigration status. Would men be better off under this? — Increases general workplace privacy protections. Would people in middle age be better off under this? — Protects established workers' privacy and data rights. Would Native Americans be better off under this? — Prohibits use of identity markers for surveillance. Would people in rural areas be better off under this? — Increases privacy protections in rural employment settings. Would people over 65 be better off under this? — Protects older workers' privacy and data rights. Would students be better off under this? — Protects applicants' data privacy during the hiring process. Would people in cities be better off under this? — Increases privacy protections in urban employment settings. Would veterans be better off under this, taking everything together? — Increases general workplace privacy protections. Would white Americans be better off under this? — Increases general workplace privacy protections. Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this? — Protects young workers entering the workforce from invasive surveillance. Would business owners be better off under this? — Increases compliance costs and legal liabilities for employers.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Does this expand the rights of people with disabilities? — Prohibits the collection of disability status unrelated to job duties and requires accessible disclosures. Does this protect the freedom to practise a religion? — Prohibits monitoring of religious views and collection of data in prayer areas. Does this protect what people are allowed to say in public life? — Prohibits monitoring of political opinions and protected concerted activities. Does this narrow the gap between how men and women are treated? — Prohibits collection of identity markers unrelated to job duties. Does this expand the rights of LGBTQ people? — Prohibits collection of identity markers unrelated to job duties. Does this narrow racial gaps in how people are treated? — Prohibits collection of identity markers unrelated to job duties. Does this make it easier for immigrants already here to become citizens? — Prohibits employers from using surveillance to ascertain the immigration status of covered individuals.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this protect people from being watched or searched? — Strongly expands privacy rights for employees, including off-duty and biometric protections. Does this protect the right to fair treatment by the courts? — Provides workers the right to correct erroneous data used in work-related decisions and an explicit right to sue. Does this give the federal government more power? — Creates a new federal regulatory body (Worker Protection and Technology Division) to oversee workplace data practices. Does this protect the individual right to speak freely? — Protects concerted activity and political opinion from employer surveillance.
- Education And Technology
- Does this give people more control over their personal data? — Establishes strict data minimization, disclosure, and access rights for worker data. Does this put more rules on large technology companies? — Increases regulation on automated decision systems and data collection technologies used by employers.
- National Security And Foreign Policy
- Does this give the government more power to monitor people inside the country? — Directly limits and prohibits various forms of domestic surveillance in the workplace.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this strengthen the rights of workers to organise? — Prohibits employers from collecting data to identify or monitor labor union activities. Does this make it easier to run a small business? — Imposes significant compliance burdens and potential high statutory damages on employers with 11 or more employees. Does this reduce what the federal government spends? — Establishes a new division within the Department of Labor, increasing government administrative spending.
- 6/18/2026
- Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
- 7 Cosponsors added.
- Introduced in Senate
One bill Congress.gov lists as related to this one — companions in the other chamber, earlier versions, and bills this one absorbed or was folded into.
Tammy BaldwinDemocrat · Wisconsin
Richard BlumenthalDemocrat · Connecticut
Cory BookerDemocrat · New Jersey
John FettermanDemocrat · Pennsylvania
Bernie SandersIndependent · Vermont
Brian SchatzDemocrat · Hawaii
Elizabeth WarrenDemocrat · Massachusetts