100+ Employee Monitoring Statistics and Trends 2026, With a 15-Tool Software Audit
How many employers monitor staff around the world, what they track, how employees react and which rules apply. We pulled figures from more than 30 official, academic and survey sources covering 30+ countries, audited what 15 monitoring tools can do, and checked the monitoring laws in every US state.
Most employers can watch far more than the law asks them to disclose
Three findings come from HR Stacks research, three from official and survey sources in the US, the EU and the UK. Every figure shows its period and source.
employee monitoring tools we checked offer a hidden mode with no visible icon for the employee.
HR Stacks monitoring software audit, Oct 2026
monitoring tools we checked record the text employees type, and 13 sell automated productivity or risk scores.
HR Stacks monitoring software audit, Oct 2026
US jurisdictions, counting DC, require private employers to give notice before electronic monitoring: Connecticut, Delaware, Maine and New York.
HR Stacks US monitoring law tracker, Oct 2026
of US managers say their firm uses at least one algorithmic tool to instruct, monitor or evaluate workers, against 79% in France, Germany, Italy and Spain and 40% in Japan.
OECD employer survey, Jun to Aug 2024
of EU workers say digital technologies are used to supervise or monitor their work and behaviour.
EU-OSHA OSH Pulse, Mar to Apr 2025
of UK adults say monitoring by an employer would be intrusive, and 57% would feel uncomfortable taking a job that involved it.
UK ICO (Survation), Aug 2023
Employee monitoring statistics at a glance: the 23 numbers that matter
Each figure shows its period and source. Use Copy to take the sentence with its source attached.
How common employee monitoring is
90% of US managers say their firm uses at least one algorithmic management tool to instruct, monitor or evaluate workers, compared with 79% in France, Germany, Italy and Spain and 40% in Japan.
OECD employer survey, Jun to Aug 202468% of US workers report some form of electronic monitoring at work, rising to 88% at organisations with 1,000 or more staff.
Washington Center for Equitable Growth (YouGov), Jul 202425% of EU workers say digital technologies are used to supervise or monitor their work and behaviour.
EU-OSHA OSH Pulse, Mar to Apr 202537% of EU workers are monitored for their working hours, and 36% for entry and exit times.
European Commission JRC AIM-WORK survey, Oct 2024 to Jan 202517% of EU workers say a computer programme monitors their work performance.
Eurofound European Working Conditions Survey, 20247% of EU workplaces use machines or systems that monitor worker performance or behaviour, rising to 15% in transport and storage.
EU-OSHA ESENER, May to Oct 2024
What employers track
55% of US firms monitor the content or tone of workers’ calls, conversations or emails, compared with 6% in France, Germany, Italy and Spain and 8% in Japan.
OECD employer survey, Jun to Aug 202478% of EU online platform workers have their hours and task time logged, while 67% have communications monitored and 53% face screenshots or keystroke logging.
Eurofound and ELA platform work survey, 20257% of EU workers have physiological data such as heart rate, blood pressure or posture monitored by digital technology.
EU-OSHA OSH Pulse, Mar to Apr 20258 of 15 monitoring tools HR Stacks checked offer a hidden mode with no visible icon, and 6 record the text employees type. Original data
HR Stacks monitoring software audit, Oct 2026
What employees know and think
51% of US workers say their employer uses technology to monitor them.
APA Work in America survey (Harris Poll), Apr 202362% of US adults had heard nothing about employers using AI to analyse how workers do their jobs.
Pew Research Center, Dec 202261% of US adults oppose employers using AI to track workers’ movements, the highest opposition of any use Pew tested.
Pew Research Center, Dec 202281% of US adults think workers would feel inappropriately watched if AI were used to analyse how they do their jobs.
Pew Research Center, Dec 202270% of UK adults say monitoring by an employer would be intrusive.
UK ICO (Survation), Aug 2023
What monitoring does to staff
42% of monitored US workers plan to look for a new job within a year, compared with 23% of workers who are not monitored.
APA Work in America survey (Harris Poll), Apr 202356% of monitored US workers feel tense or stressed during the workday, compared with about 40% of workers who are not monitored.
APA Work in America survey (Harris Poll), Apr 2023A meta-analysis of 94 samples and 23,461 workers found monitoring had no effect on job performance but was linked to higher stress.
Ravid et al., Personnel Psychology, 2023Output fell about 17% among remote workers whose surveillance was started or stopped without an explanation, in a randomised trial of 434 workers.
Kala and Lyons, NBER Working Paper 33348, 2025
Which rules apply
4 of 51 US jurisdictions require private employers to give notice before electronic monitoring: Connecticut, Delaware, Maine and New York. Original data
HR Stacks US monitoring law tracker, Oct 202640 of 51 US jurisdictions have no monitoring notice law, no employee biometric rule and no AI-in-employment law in force. Original data
HR Stacks US monitoring law tracker, Oct 2026Ontario employers with 25 or more staff must have a written electronic monitoring policy and share it with employees within 30 days.
Ontario Employment Standards Act, Part XI.1, in force since 20222 December 2027 is the new date when EU AI Act duties apply to high-risk workplace AI, including tools that monitor and evaluate staff, after a 2026 delay.
Regulation (EU) 2026/1744
Nine in ten US firms monitor or manage staff by algorithm. In Japan it is four in ten.
Employer surveys and worker surveys measure different things, so the headline rate depends on who you ask. Both point the same way: monitoring is standard in large US firms and patchier elsewhere.
How many companies monitor their employees?Most large employers do. In an OECD survey of 6,047 firms, 90% of US managers said their firm uses at least one algorithmic tool to instruct, monitor or evaluate staff, against 79% in France, Germany, Italy and Spain and 40% in Japan. Asked directly, 68% of US workers report some form of electronic monitoring, and 88% at organisations with 1,000 or more staff.
Firms using at least one algorithmic management tool
Source: OECD, Algorithmic management in the workplace (AI Paper No. 31), survey of 6,047 firms with 20+ staff
US workers reporting electronic monitoring, by employer size
Source: Washington Center for Equitable Growth (YouGov), Hertel-Fernandez 2024
Four EU surveys, four different questions: do not rank these
Monitored for working hours. 70,316 EU workers, Oct 2024 to Jan 2025.European Commission JRC, AIM-WORK
Digital technologies supervise or monitor work and behaviour. 28,220 workers, Mar to Apr 2025. Malta was highest at 46%.EU-OSHA, OSH Pulse 2025
A computer programme monitors work performance. 36,644 interviews, 2024.Eurofound, EWCS 2024
Workplaces using systems that monitor performance or behaviour. 41,458 establishments with 5+ staff, May to Oct 2024. Transport and storage reached 15%.EU-OSHA, ESENER 2024
The 7% is a share of workplaces, not workers. The other three are shares of workers asked different questions, so the gap between them reflects definitions, not change over time.
For employers: if you run teams across the US and Europe, expect European staff to meet monitoring with less familiarity and more legal protection. Rules in each country are covered in our Employer of Record guide.
Hours and logins are routine. Screens, keystrokes and conversations are next.
Time tracking is the most common form of monitoring almost everywhere. The bigger difference between markets is whether employers read what staff say and type.
of US firms monitor the content or tone of workers’ calls, conversations or emails.
of firms in France, Germany, Italy and Spain do the same. Japan sits at 8%.
Source: OECD, Algorithmic management in the workplace (AI Paper No. 31), Jun to Aug 2024
What EU online platform workers say is monitored
Hours and task time logged (78% overall)
Emails and messages monitored (67% overall)
Screenshots or keystroke logging (53% overall)
Source: Eurofound, Algorithmic control (Feb 2026), Eurofound and European Labour Authority survey
How EU workers are monitored
Source: European Commission JRC, AIM-WORK
Body data is still rare
7% of EU workers have heart rate, blood pressure or posture monitored, rising to 21% in Luxembourg and the Netherlands.
Source: EU-OSHA, OSH Pulse 2025
What UK workers who think they were monitored say was tracked
Source: UK ICO (Survation poll), 1,012 UK adults
For employers: time and attendance tracking is the least contested form of monitoring and the easiest to justify. Most teams get it from time tracking software or scheduling tools rather than dedicated surveillance software.
Employers say they disclose monitoring. Most staff are unsure what is watched.
Surveys of employers and employees rarely match. The gap matters in Connecticut, Delaware, Maine and New York, where failing to give notice is itself a violation.
of US employers say they disclose their monitoring practices.
of US employees report knowing they are monitored online.
Source: ExpressVPN workplace surveillance survey, 1,500 US employers and 1,500 US employees, published Feb 2025. Commissioned by a VPN company; panel and fieldwork dates are not published
US adults who had heard about AI monitoring of workers
Source: Pew Research Center
US workers who say their employer monitors them
said their employer uses technology to monitor them. The rest either are not monitored or do not know.
Source: APA 2023 Work in America survey
UK adults who believe they have been monitored
Source: UK ICO (Survation poll)
For employers: a notice that sits in a handbook is not the same as staff knowing. New York and Connecticut now require acknowledgement or a plain-language statement at hire, which most onboarding software can collect as a signed task.
Opposition rises the closer tracking gets to the body
People draw a line between measuring output and tracking a person. Movement and location sit on the wrong side of it. Safety is the one framing that wins more support than opposition.
US adults opposing each use of AI to monitor workers
Driving is the only use where more people favour (43%) than oppose (34%). Source: Pew Research Center
The people most exposed oppose it most
of full-time workers oppose it, against 60% of part-time workers and 54% of adults not working.
Expectations of feeling watched rise with income: 90% of upper-income adults expect workers to feel inappropriately watched, against 84% middle and 70% lower income.
Source: Pew Research Center
UK adults rating each monitoring method as intrusive
70% say employer monitoring in general would be intrusive and 57% would feel uncomfortable taking a job that involved it. Source: UK ICO (Survation poll)
Workers who feel “constantly watched” by their employer
Global average shown as “nearly a third” in the report (US figure 33%). Source: ADP Research, People at Work 2025 (survey by an HR and payroll provider)
For employers: if you plan to monitor location or personal devices, expect pushback and plan the explanation first. Tools built for employee engagement give staff a channel to raise concerns before they turn into exits.
Monitored workers are more stressed and almost twice as likely to plan an exit
These surveys show associations, not proof that monitoring causes the harm. Precarious and lower-control jobs are monitored more, which accounts for part of the gap. The pattern still holds across two independent US surveys.
Monitored vs unmonitored US workers
Feel tense or stressed at work
Feel micromanaged
Worry the employer uses tech to spy on them
Plan to look for a new job within a year
Emotionally exhausted
The 40% for unmonitored workers is published as “closer to 40%”. Source: APA 2023 Work in America survey (Harris Poll)
of US workers in upper management say monitoring makes them more productive, against 42% of individual contributors.
Source: APA 2023 Work in America survey
Productivity monitored all the time vs never
Work faster than is healthy or safe
Injured at work in the past year
For employers: the cost shows up in turnover before it shows up anywhere else. If you already track stress, our workplace stress statistics report has the baseline figures to compare against.
Americans accept AI that watches far more than AI that fires
Support collapses once monitoring data feeds a decision about someone’s job. Research on AI monitoring points the same way: an algorithm that judges people draws more resistance than a human doing the same job.
Using AI-collected data in job decisions
Deciding whether to fire someone
Deciding who gets promoted
Source: Pew Research Center
What Americans expect if AI analyses how people work
Source: Pew Research Center
Bias in performance reviews
of US adults say racial or ethnic bias is a problem in evaluations, 31% a major one. Among them, 46% think AI would help and 13% think it would make it worse.
Source: Pew Research Center
AI monitoring draws more resistance than a human manager
For employers: keep a person in any decision that ends or changes a job. California’s SB 947 will bar relying only on an automated system to discipline or fire from 1 July 2027. Talent management platforms that keep reviews manager-led are the safer default.
Monitoring alone does not raise performance. How it is explained does.
The strongest evidence comes from meta-analyses and randomised trials, not from vendor case studies. On average, monitoring leaves output flat and adds stress. Results improve when the purpose is clear and the data ties to something workers can see.
Ravid, White, Tomczak, Miles and Behrend: 94 samples, 23,461 workers
Meta-analysisSource: Personnel Psychology, 2023
Kala and Lyons: remote data-entry workers on Upwork
Randomised field experimentKelley, Lane and Schönholzer: vehicle tracking for 255 Nairobi minibuses
Randomised field experimentSource: American Economic Review, 2024
Three monitoring statistics that do not mean what they seem
- “96% of companies use time tracking.” This comes from a feature check of 50 monitoring tools, not a survey of companies. It describes software, not adoption.
- “70% of large employers will monitor staff by 2025.” This was a 2021 analyst forecast quoted in the press, not a measured rate, yet it is often repeated as one.
- “54% would quit over increased surveillance.” The original 2025 survey reports 49% would consider leaving if surveillance increased and 17% are very likely to quit.
For employers: before buying monitoring software, define the outcome you want to change and how staff will see the data. Our remote work statistics cover what predicts output in distributed teams.
Most monitoring tools can run hidden from the people they watch
We checked what 15 employee monitoring tools sold worldwide publish about their own features and prices, on each vendor’s site in October 2026. Screenshots, AI scores and live screen video are now standard features, and more than half the tools can run with no icon on the employee’s screen.
What the 15 tools say they can do
Source: HR Stacks monitoring software audit
How we coded each feature
Hidden mode. Yes: the vendor offers an agent with no tray icon or other sign on the employee’s device. Silent agent: runs in the background without a confirmed invisible mode.
Keystrokes. Typed text: logs what is typed. Activity count: counts keyboard and mouse activity only.
Video or audio. Screen recording, live screen view, webcam or audio capture.
Not stated. The vendor’s own pages do not confirm the feature, so we do not count it.
| Tool | Entry price | Screenshots | Keystrokes | Video or audio | Hidden mode | AI scoring |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ActivTrak | $10.00 per user/mo, annual only | Yes | No | Yes | Not stated | Yes |
| Clockify | $3.99 per user/mo, annual | Yes | Activity count | Not stated | No | No |
| Controlio | $6.67 per user/mo, annual | Yes | Typed text | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| CurrentWare | $12.00 per user/mo, annual | Yes | Activity count | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| DeskTime | $6.42 per user/mo, annual | Yes | No | No | No | Yes |
| EmpMonitor | $3.00 per user/mo, annual | Yes | Typed text | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Hubstaff | $4.99 per user/mo, annual | Yes | Activity count | No | Silent agent | Yes |
| Insightful | $8.00 per user/mo, annual | Yes | Activity count | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| InterGuard | Quote only | Yes | Typed text | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Kickidler | $9.99 per user/mo, 1-month license per user | Not stated | Typed text | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Monitask | $6.49 per user/mo, annual | Yes | Activity count | Not stated | Yes | Yes |
| Teramind | $14.00 per user/mo, monthly | Not stated | Typed text | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Time Doctor | $6.67 per user/mo, annual | Yes | Activity count | Yes | Silent agent | Yes |
| Traqq | $4.00 per user/mo, unconfirmed basis | No | No | No | No | No |
| Veriato | $18.00 per user/mo, annual | Yes | Typed text | Not stated | Not stated | Yes |
Prices are the lowest published per user per month, mostly billed annually, checked on each vendor’s pricing page on 19 Oct 2026. Prices change often; check the vendor’s page before buying.
What the law says about hidden mode: UK regulator guidance treats covert monitoring as justified only in exceptional cases such as suspected criminal activity, and Germany requires works council approval before any monitoring tool goes live. In the US, 4 of 51 jurisdictions require employers to give notice, so a hidden agent run without that notice breaches the law there. The rules by country and by US state follow in the next two chapters.
For employers: a hidden mode is a legal risk in most markets you hire in, not a feature. If you need monitoring at all, choose a tool that can run visibly and give staff access to their own data.
Hiring abroad means meeting monitoring rules you will not find at home
Outside the US, monitoring is usually regulated through data protection and labour law rather than one notice statute. Several rules require consultation or a written policy before any tool is switched on.
- 1998Connecticut passes the first US electronic monitoring notice law
- 2001Delaware adds notice or daily electronic notice
- Apr 2022Ontario requires a written monitoring policy at employers with 25+ staff
- May 2022New York notice law takes effect
- Feb 2024UK ICO orders Serco Leisure to stop face and fingerprint attendance checks for 2,000+ staff
- Feb 2025EU bans emotion recognition in the workplace
- Jul 2026Maine notice and surveillance law takes effect
- Oct 2026Connecticut tightens notice and adds penalties
- Dec 2026EU Platform Work Directive transposition deadline
- Dec 2027EU AI Act duties for high-risk workplace AI apply
Rules that apply before monitoring starts
Works council approval. The works council co-decides the introduction and use of any technical device able to monitor behaviour or performance.Works Constitution Act, section 87(1) no. 6
Written policy at 25+ staff. Employers must share it within 30 days and keep copies for 3 years.Ontario Employment Standards Act, Part XI.1
14 days’ written notice before camera, computer or tracking surveillance.Workplace Surveillance Act 2005 (summary via Swaab, law firm)
Emotion recognition banned since 2 Feb 2025, with fines up to €35m or 7% of global turnover.EU AI Act, Articles 5 and 99
Where rules are moving
EU member states with a final law transposing the Platform Work Directive by October 2026, ahead of the 2 December 2026 deadline. Italy, the Netherlands and Spain had published drafts or consultations.Directive (EU) 2024/2831; Italian Ministry of Labour
Victorian inquiry recommendations supported in principle, including 14 days’ notice and a ban on selling worker surveillance data.Victorian Government response, Nov 2025
India’s DPDP Rules apply notice, security and breach duties to personal data, including employee data handled for employment.DPDP Rules 2025 (summary via Hogan Lovells, law firm)
An Employer of Record handles local contracts and workplace policies when you hire without an entity. Compare providers in our Employer of Record rankings, or read the full reviews:
More EOR reviews: RemoFirst, Papaya Global, Pebl, Rippling. Comparisons: Deel vs Remote, Remote vs Multiplier, Multiplier vs Oyster HR, Deel vs Rippling, or all comparisons.
Hiring in a country with stricter monitoring rules?
See which Employer of Record providers cover it, what they charge per employee and how they handle local policies.
Only 4 US states make employers say they are watching
We checked six monitoring rules in all 50 states and DC against state statutes, as in force on 19 October 2026. US federal law sets no general notice duty for private employers, so state law decides what staff are told. Laws passed but not yet in force are listed separately.
Electronic monitoring notice laws by state
Source: HR Stacks US monitoring law tracker
How we coded each rule
Monitoring notice. Yes: a general statute requires private employers to give notice of email, phone or internet monitoring. Narrower rule: covers one channel or comes through a privacy law (California, New Jersey). Public-sector-only rules count as No.
Recording consent. All-party: everyone in a call or conversation must agree to a recording. Mixed: all-party in some settings.
Employee biometrics. Yes: a statute requires notice or consent before an employer collects staff biometrics. Consumer privacy laws that exempt employee data count as No.
AI in employment. In force: a state law regulating AI or automated decisions in hiring, discipline or firing applies today. From 2027: enacted but not yet in force.
| State | Notice | Recording | Biometrics | Social media | AI law | Privacy law | Key laws |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alabama | No | One-party | No | No | No | No | None of the tracked rules |
| Alaska | No | One-party | No | No | No | No | None of the tracked rules |
| Arizona | No | One-party | No | No | No | No | None of the tracked rules |
| Arkansas | No | One-party | No | Yes | No | No | Social media account privacy law |
| California | Narrow rule | All-party | Yes | Yes | In force | Yes | CCPA covers employee data (2023); Civil Rights Council automated-decision rules (Oct 2025) |
| Colorado | No | One-party | Yes | Yes | From 2027 | Biometrics only | C.R.S. 6-1-1314 employee biometrics (Jul 2025); SB26-189 automated decisions from 1 Jan 2027 |
| Connecticut | Yes | Mixed | No | Yes | In force | No | Gen. Stat. 31-48d, replaced by PA 26-73 from 1 Oct 2026 (notice); PA 26-15 (automated tools, from 1 Oct 2026) |
| Delaware | Yes | One-party | No | Yes | No | No | 19 Del. C. 705 (2001), notice or daily electronic notice; $100 per violation |
| District of Columbia | No | One-party | No | No | No | No | None of the tracked rules |
| Florida | No | All-party | No | No | No | No | All-party recording consent |
| Georgia | No | One-party | No | No | No | No | None of the tracked rules |
| Hawaii | No | One-party | No | Yes | No | No | Social media account privacy law |
| Idaho | No | One-party | No | No | No | No | None of the tracked rules |
| Illinois | No | All-party | Yes, with lawsuits | Yes | In force | No | BIPA, 740 ILCS 14, with private lawsuits; AI Video Interview Act (2020); HB 3773 (Jan 2026) |
| Indiana | No | One-party | No | No | No | No | None of the tracked rules |
| Iowa | No | One-party | No | No | No | No | None of the tracked rules |
| Kansas | No | One-party | No | No | No | No | None of the tracked rules |
| Kentucky | No | One-party | No | No | No | No | None of the tracked rules |
| Louisiana | No | One-party | No | Yes | No | No | Social media account privacy law |
| Maine | Yes | One-party | No | Yes | No | No | 26 M.R.S. 620-A (14 Jul 2026), notice plus limits on home and vehicle surveillance; $100 to $500 |
| Maryland | No | All-party | Narrow rule | Yes | Narrow rule | No | Lab. & Empl. 3-717, consent for facial recognition in job interviews (2020) |
| Massachusetts | No | All-party | No | No | No | No | All-party recording consent |
| Michigan | No | One-party | No | Yes | No | No | Social media account privacy law |
| Minnesota | No | One-party | No | No | No | No | None of the tracked rules |
| Mississippi | No | One-party | No | No | No | No | None of the tracked rules |
| Missouri | No | One-party | No | No | No | No | None of the tracked rules |
| Montana | No | All-party | No | Yes | No | No | Social media account privacy law; all-party recording consent |
| Nebraska | No | One-party | No | Yes | No | No | Social media account privacy law |
| Nevada | No | Mixed | No | Yes | No | No | Social media account privacy law; mixed recording consent |
| New Hampshire | No | All-party | No | Yes | No | No | Social media account privacy law; all-party recording consent |
| New Jersey | Narrow rule | One-party | No | Yes | Narrow rule | No | N.J.S.A. 34:6B-22 vehicle tracking notice (2022); N.J.A.C. 13:16 disparate-impact rules |
| New Mexico | No | One-party | No | Yes | No | No | Social media account privacy law |
| New York | Yes | One-party | Narrow rule | Yes | NYC only | No | Civil Rights Law 52-c (May 2022); Labor Law 201-a fingerprint ban; NYC Local Law 144 (city only) |
| North Carolina | No | One-party | No | No | No | No | None of the tracked rules |
| North Dakota | No | One-party | No | No | No | No | None of the tracked rules |
| Ohio | No | One-party | No | No | No | No | None of the tracked rules |
| Oklahoma | No | One-party | No | Yes | No | No | Social media account privacy law |
| Oregon | No | Mixed | No | Yes | No | No | Social media account privacy law; mixed recording consent |
| Pennsylvania | No | All-party | No | No | No | No | All-party recording consent |
| Rhode Island | No | One-party | No | Yes | No | No | Social media account privacy law |
| South Carolina | No | One-party | No | No | No | No | None of the tracked rules |
| South Dakota | No | One-party | No | No | No | No | None of the tracked rules |
| Tennessee | No | One-party | No | Yes | No | No | Social media account privacy law |
| Texas | No | One-party | Yes | No | Narrow rule | No | CUBI, Bus. & Com. Code 503.001 (biometrics); TRAIGA (Jan 2026) bars intentional AI discrimination only |
| Utah | No | One-party | No | Yes | No | No | Social media account privacy law |
| Vermont | No | One-party | No | Yes | No | No | Social media account privacy law |
| Virginia | No | One-party | No | Yes | No | No | Social media account privacy law |
| Washington | No | All-party | Yes | Yes | No | No | RCW 19.375 biometric identifiers (notice and consent) |
| West Virginia | No | One-party | No | Yes | No | No | Social media account privacy law |
| Wisconsin | No | One-party | No | Yes | No | No | Social media account privacy law |
| Wyoming | No | One-party | No | No | No | No | None of the tracked rules |
What is changing
- California, 1 Jan 2027: AB 1331 bans surveillance in workplace bathrooms and AB 1883 bars tools that infer emotions or collect neural data. SB 947 bars relying only on an automated system to discipline or fire from 1 Jul 2027.
- Colorado, 1 Jan 2027: SB26-189 replaces the original AI Act with notice, explanation and human review duties for automated employment decisions.
- Connecticut, 1 Oct 2027: notice duties for automated employment decision tools start under Public Act 26-15.
- New York: A 9581, requiring annual reports on AI’s effect on hiring, passed both houses in June 2026 and awaits signature.
Rolled back or withdrawn
- Colorado AI Act (SB24-205): repealed and replaced in May 2026 before it took effect.
- California SB 7 (“No Robo Bosses”): vetoed in October 2025.
- CFPB Circular 2024-06 on worker surveillance scores: withdrawn 12 May 2025.
- NLRB memo GC 23-02 on electronic monitoring and organising rights: rescinded 14 Feb 2025.
Large states with no monitoring notice law: Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas. Illinois still regulates employee biometrics under BIPA, which lets workers sue, and Texas regulates biometrics through its attorney general.
For employers: a written monitoring notice, signed at hire and posted where monitoring happens, satisfies the strictest current state rules and costs little. Keep it in your HRIS with the employee record.
Time tracking, not surveillance, is where most employers start
Most employers do not need surveillance software to meet their goals. Start with the category that fits the problem. We review ActivTrak, Hubstaff, Clockify, Connecteam and Deputy, or browse all reviewed products.
EU AI Act duties for high-risk workplace AI apply from this date, after Regulation (EU) 2026/1744 moved them from August 2026. They cover AI used to monitor and evaluate workers and to allocate tasks: risk management, human oversight, logging and informing staff.
Monitoring software market size, 2025
Narrow estimates count dedicated monitoring software: Verified Market Research ($627.9M) and Fortune Business Insights ($648.8M, rising to $1.78B by 2034). The Business Research Company counts task tracking, attendance and compliance reporting too ($3.89B, rising to $8.29B by 2030).
How we built this report
Data reviewed 19 October 2026. Q4 2026 edition.
Software audit
15 tools checked on their own pricing, feature and help pages on 19 October 2026. Review sites and affiliate pages were not used. Features a vendor does not confirm are marked Not stated, never assumed.
Third-party figures
Taken from the publisher’s own page or PDF: statistics offices, EU agencies, regulators, peer-reviewed journals and named research groups. Company-run surveys are labelled. Vendor blogs and stats roundup sites are excluded.
US law tracker
Six rules for 50 states and DC, read in each state’s statute or legislature page and coded against fixed definitions before collection. Only laws in force on 19 October 2026 are counted. Laws passed but not in force are listed under What is changing.
Corrections
Every figure from the previous edition was rechecked. Newer editions replace older values in place, errors are corrected, and each change is listed in the update log below.
Update log
| Figure | Previous | Now | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| US states with a monitoring notice law | 3 (Connecticut, Delaware, New York) | 4, adding Maine (in force 14 Jul 2026) | 26 M.R.S. 620-A |
| First state notice law | Delaware, 2001 | Connecticut, 1998 | Conn. Gen. Stat. 31-48d |
| EU AI Act high-risk duties for workplace AI | August 2026 | 2 December 2027 | Regulation (EU) 2026/1744 |
| EU platform workers with constant time tracking | 75% | 78% | Eurofound, Feb 2026 |
| EU platform workers with screen monitoring | 50% | 53% | Eurofound, Feb 2026 |
| AI data in promotion decisions | 22% favor, or 47% oppose | 22% favor, 47% oppose, 30% not sure | Pew Research Center |
| Evaluation tools rewarding or sanctioning staff | 23% and 14% | US 83% and 67%, Europe 13% and 4% | OECD AI Paper No. 31 |
| Platform Work Directive transposition | 1 of 27 states with a draft law | No final law; drafts in Italy, the Netherlands and Spain | EUR-Lex; Italian Ministry of Labour |
| Monitoring software market, 2025 | $0.65B to $4.9B | $0.63B to $3.89B, labelled by scope | Market research firms |
| Manager job satisfaction, skills and decision-quality shares | Exact shares | Shown as published findings without shares until confirmed | OECD AI Paper No. 31 |
All sources (26)
| Publisher | Title | Date | Link |
|---|---|---|---|
| OECD | Algorithmic management in the workplace, AI Paper No. 31 | Feb 2025 (fieldwork Jun to Aug 2024) | View source |
| Pew Research Center | AI in hiring and evaluating workers | Apr 2023 (fieldwork Dec 2022) | View source |
| Eurofound | Algorithmic control: digital surveillance in online platform work | Feb 2026 | View source |
| Eurofound | European Working Conditions Survey 2024 | 2025 | View source |
| EU-OSHA | OSH Pulse 2025 | Sep 2025 | View source |
| EU-OSHA | ESENER 2024 first findings | Feb 2025 | View source |
| European Commission JRC | Digital monitoring, algorithmic management and platformisation of work | Oct 2025 | View source |
| American Psychological Association | 2023 Work in America survey: AI and monitoring | Sep 2023 | View source |
| Washington Center for Equitable Growth | Prevalence of automated management and surveillance at work | 2024 | View source |
| UK ICO | Employment practices: monitoring workers (with Survation poll) | Oct 2023 | View source |
| UK ICO | Serco Leisure enforcement notices | Feb 2024 | View source |
| Ravid et al. | Electronic performance monitoring meta-analysis, Personnel Psychology | 2023 | View source |
| Kala and Lyons | Digital surveillance and managerial clarity, NBER w33348 | Jan 2025 | View source |
| Kelley, Lane and Schönholzer | Monitoring in small firms, American Economic Review | 2024 | View source |
| Schlund and Zitek | Algorithmic versus human surveillance, Communications Psychology | 2024 | View source |
| ADP Research | People at Work 2025: workplace monitoring (HR provider survey) | 2025 | View source |
| ExpressVPN | Workplace surveillance trends, US (method not published) | Feb 2025 | View source |
| New York Senate | Civil Rights Law section 52-c | In force May 2022 | View source |
| Connecticut General Assembly | Public Act 26-73 | In force 1 Oct 2026 | View source |
| Delaware Code | Title 19, section 705 | 2001 | View source |
| Maine Legislature | 26 M.R.S. section 620-A | In force 14 Jul 2026 | View source |
| EUR-Lex | Regulation (EU) 2026/1744 amending the AI Act | Jul 2026 | View source |
| EUR-Lex | Directive (EU) 2024/2831 on platform work | Oct 2024 | View source |
| Government of Ontario | Written policy on electronic monitoring | 2022 | View source |
| Fortune Business Insights | Employee surveillance and monitoring software market | Sep 2026 | View source |
| The Business Research Company | Employee monitoring software global market report | Sep 2026 | View source |
Employee monitoring questions, answered with data
What percentage of companies monitor their employees?
It depends on the country and the definition. In an OECD survey fielded in 2024, 90% of US managers said their firm uses at least one algorithmic tool to instruct, monitor or evaluate workers, against 79% in France, Germany, Italy and Spain and 40% in Japan. In a July 2024 US survey, 68% of workers reported some form of electronic monitoring, rising to 88% at organisations with 1,000 or more staff.
Do employers have to tell employees they are being monitored?
In most of Europe, yes: data protection law requires employers to tell staff what is monitored and why, and Germany also requires works council approval before a monitoring tool goes live. Ontario requires a written policy at employers with 25 or more staff. In the US it depends on the state: our tracker found 4 of 51 jurisdictions require private employers to give notice, namely Connecticut, Delaware, Maine and New York.
Which states require notice of employee monitoring?
Connecticut (since 1998, tightened from 1 October 2026), Delaware (2001), New York (May 2022) and Maine (14 July 2026). New York and Connecticut set civil penalties of $500, $1,000 and $3,000 for first, second and later breaches. Delaware fines $100 per violation and Maine $100 to $500.
Is employee monitoring legal?
Monitoring company systems and devices is generally legal in the US if you follow state notice, recording and biometric rules. 12 of 51 jurisdictions require consent from everyone to record a call or conversation in at least some settings, and 5 regulate the collection of employee biometrics. In the EU, monitoring must meet GDPR and national labour law, and in Germany the works council co-decides on any monitoring tool.
Do employees know they are being monitored?
Often not. In an APA survey from April 2023, 51% of US workers said their employer uses technology to monitor them. A 2025 survey commissioned by ExpressVPN found 86% of US employers say they disclose monitoring, but only 22% of employees reported knowing they are monitored online.
Does employee monitoring improve productivity?
Not on average. A 2023 meta-analysis of 94 samples and 23,461 workers found no effect on job performance and a small rise in stress. A 2025 randomised trial with 434 remote workers found output fell about 17% when surveillance was started or stopped without an explanation.
How does monitoring affect stress and turnover?
Monitored workers report more stress and are more likely to plan an exit. In the APA 2023 survey, 56% of monitored US workers felt tense or stressed at work against about 40% of unmonitored workers, and 42% planned to look for a new job within a year against 23%. These are associations, not proof of cause.
What can employee monitoring software do?
Employee monitoring software, sometimes called bossware, tracks activity such as screenshots, keystrokes, web use, location or webcam. Our audit of 15 tools found 12 take screenshots, 6 record the text employees type and 8 offer a hidden mode the employee cannot see. The median published entry price was $6.67 per user per month.
What does the EU AI Act say about workplace monitoring?
Emotion recognition in the workplace has been banned since 2 February 2025, with fines of up to 35 million euros or 7% of global turnover. AI used to monitor, evaluate or allocate work to staff is classed as high risk, and those duties now apply from 2 December 2027 after Regulation (EU) 2026/1744 delayed them from August 2026.
What software do employers use to track employee time?
Most employers use time tracking or scheduling tools rather than dedicated surveillance software. These record hours, breaks and attendance, which is the least contested form of monitoring in surveys. See our reviews of the best time tracking software and employee scheduling software.