On January 18, 2022, a New Jersey bill which prohibits employers from making use of tracking devices in vehicles operated by employees without providing written notice was passed into law. See Assembly Bill A3950. Effective April 18, 2022, the law will subject employers that knowingly make use of a “tracking device” in a vehicle used by an employee without providing written notice to the employee to civil penalties not exceeding $1,000 for the first violation and not exceeding $2,500 for the second violation. Id.

Earlier in January 2022, a prior version of the bill was subject to the New Jersey governor’s conditional veto that watered down some of its provisions (e.g. changing the criminal penalties to civil penalties), which the Assembly and Senate passed in concurrence with the governor’s recommendations.  Importantly, the legislation transitioned away from a consent requirement to a notice requirement for the use of a tracking device in a vehicle used by an employee.

The enacted bill requires that such notice provided to employees be written, although the law does not explicitly outline what must be disclosed in the notice’s language. Id. The law defines employers as “an employer or employer’s agent, representative, or designee,” while exempting a number of government employers such as the Department of Corrections, and state and local law enforcement agencies. Id. Based on this definition alone, which largely aligns with definitions of “employer” in other New Jersey labor statutes, it is not yet clear how courts will understand the scope of covered employers.

The law defines “tracking device” to include electronic or mechanical devices which are designed or intended to be used for the sole purpose of tracking the movement of a vehicle, person, or device but shall not include devices used for the purpose of documenting employee expense reimbursement.” Id. (emphasis added). This definition supports a narrow reading that excludes devices that are able to track movements but are not designed solely for that purpose (e.g. smartphones). Again, however, how narrowly courts will choose to interpret this provision of the law is not yet clear.

 

Print:
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Natalie Dugan

Natalie Dugan is an associate in the firm’s Washington, DC office and a member of the Data Privacy and Cybersecurity Practice Group as well as the International Trade Practice Group.

Natalie advises clients on a broad range of privacy and cybersecurity issues, including…

Natalie Dugan is an associate in the firm’s Washington, DC office and a member of the Data Privacy and Cybersecurity Practice Group as well as the International Trade Practice Group.

Natalie advises clients on a broad range of privacy and cybersecurity issues, including on topics related to privacy policies and data practices, responses to regulatory inquiries, and compliance obligations under U.S. state privacy regulations like the California Consumer Privacy Act. Her practice also includes helping clients navigate international trade policy and customs matters.

Photo of Libbie Canter Libbie Canter

Libbie Canter represents a wide variety of multinational companies on privacy, cyber security, and technology transaction issues, including helping clients with their most complex privacy challenges and the development of governance frameworks and processes to comply with global privacy laws. She routinely supports…

Libbie Canter represents a wide variety of multinational companies on privacy, cyber security, and technology transaction issues, including helping clients with their most complex privacy challenges and the development of governance frameworks and processes to comply with global privacy laws. She routinely supports clients on their efforts to launch new products and services involving emerging technologies, and she has assisted dozens of clients with their efforts to prepare for and comply with federal and state privacy laws, including the California Consumer Privacy Act and California Privacy Rights Act.

Libbie represents clients across industries, but she also has deep expertise in advising clients in highly-regulated sectors, including financial services and digital health companies. She counsels these companies — and their technology and advertising partners — on how to address legacy regulatory issues and the cutting edge issues that have emerged with industry innovations and data collaborations.

Miranda Rutherford

Miranda Rutherford is an associate in the firm’s Palo Alto office whose practice focuses on data privacy, cybersecurity, and electronic surveillance matters. Miranda advises clients on compliance with federal and state privacy and surveillance laws, including when clients are updating external and internal…

Miranda Rutherford is an associate in the firm’s Palo Alto office whose practice focuses on data privacy, cybersecurity, and electronic surveillance matters. Miranda advises clients on compliance with federal and state privacy and surveillance laws, including when clients are updating external and internal privacy policies, developing new products, and responding to law enforcement data requests.

Prior to joining the firm, Miranda was a law clerk to the Honorable James Donato, United States District Judge for the Northern District of California.