Maine
Maine Employee Monitoring Laws: New Notice Law (26 M.R.S. 620-A)
Independently fact-checked against primary sources (last audited August 17, 2026). · Reviewed by the RecordingLaw editorial team. · Law checked current as of August 9, 2026. · 6 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content

Maine now requires employers to disclose surveillance to workers. 26 M.R.S. § 620-A became law without the Governor's signature on January 11, 2026 and took effect on July 29, 2026, the general effective date for nonemergency laws passed in the 132nd Legislature's Second Regular Session. It bars an employer from beginning surveillance without first notifying the employee, and it requires notice to job applicants and annual written notice to current employees, while expressly excluding security cameras and GPS on company vehicles.
Information last verified August 31, 2026. This article covers Maine state law on employer monitoring of employees, including the new § 620-A notice statute and the existing social media privacy law. It does not restate Maine's general recording-consent framework in depth or its general GPS-tracking law; both are covered in the linked guides below.
Maine's New Employer Surveillance Notice Law: 26 M.R.S. § 620-A
The Maine Legislature passed "An Act to Regulate Employer Surveillance to Protect Workers" (LD 61, HP 25) on May 29, 2025. Governor Janet Mills held the bill rather than signing it immediately, and lawmakers reconsidered it in the Legislature's next session. It became law on January 11, 2026 as Public Law 2025, chapter 524, adding a new section, 26 M.R.S. § 620-A, to Maine's employment-practices statutes.
The law applies to both private and public Maine employers, and it imposes three separate notice duties on an employer that uses "employer surveillance." First, subsection 2 prohibits the use of employer surveillance at all unless the employer notifies the employee before beginning that use. That is an advance-notice rule, and the once-a-year notice does not satisfy it: an employer cannot start monitoring an existing employee and wait until the annual notice comes due. Second, the employer must tell prospective employees during the employment interview process that it engages in surveillance. Third, it must give all current employees written notice at least once per calendar year that surveillance is in use. Employers are not required to obtain a signed employee acknowledgment of the notice, unlike Connecticut's and New York's comparable statutes.
The law also gives employees two substantive protections that go beyond notice alone. First, an employee may decline an employer's request to install a data-collection or transmission application on the employee's own personal electronic device for surveillance purposes. Second, an employer may not use audiovisual monitoring in an employee's residence, on the employee's personal vehicle, or on the employee's personal property, unless that monitoring is required for the employee's job duties.
What Counts as "Employer Surveillance," and What Does Not
Section 620-A's definition of "employer surveillance" carries two notable exclusions, and getting them right matters because they run in the opposite direction from what a reader might expect. The law expressly excludes an employer's use of surveillance cameras for security or safety purposes, and it excludes the use of GPS tracking or other safety devices on vehicles owned by the employer but operated by the employee. Separately, subsection 6 exempts personal-care-services settings entirely: the whole section does not apply to surveillance installed by an employer, patient, client, or unpaid caregiver in a setting where an employee is expected to provide personal care services, such as in-home caregiving.
That second exclusion is a deliberate policy choice. New Jersey went the other way in 2022, enacting a dedicated statute, N.J. Stat. § 34:6B-22, that requires written notice before an employer tracks a vehicle an employee uses. Maine's Legislature considered the same question and excluded standard company-vehicle GPS tracking from its new notice law entirely. A Maine employer that puts a GPS unit in a company truck is not required by § 620-A to give the mandatory annual surveillance notice on account of that tracking, though the law's general notice duty could still reach other, non-vehicle forms of surveillance the same employer uses.
Effective Date: July 29, 2026
Section 620-A carries no emergency preamble and sets no effective date of its own, so it took effect 90 days after the Legislature adjourned, the standard formula for a Maine law that does not set its own effective date. The Second Regular Session of the 132nd Legislature convened January 7, 2026 and adjourned sine die on Wednesday, April 29, 2026, and the Legislature gives Wednesday, July 29, 2026 as the general effective date for nonemergency laws passed in that session. The Maine Department of Labor has published an employer-facing surveillance-notice poster, revised January 2026, that lists the same duties for employers to post. The notice requirements are in force now, so a Maine employer using covered surveillance should already be giving advance notice before monitoring begins, telling applicants at the interview, and issuing the annual written notice.
Penalties
An employer that violates § 620-A is subject to a civil fine of not less than $100 and not more than $500 per violation. The Maine Department of Labor enforces the law and may issue implementing rules; the statute does not create a private right of action letting an employee sue an employer directly for a violation.
Maine's Employee Social Media Privacy Law: 26 M.R.S. §§ 615-619
Maine's social media protections predate § 620-A by a decade. Enacted in 2015 (P.L. 2015, c. 343, Pt. B), 26 M.R.S. § 616 bars a Maine employer from requiring or coercing an employee or applicant to disclose a password or other access credential for a personal social media account, from requiring access to the account in the employer's presence, from requiring the disclosure of account information, from requiring the employee to add the employer as a contact, and from requiring a change to privacy settings that would let a third party view content the employee had otherwise restricted.
Section 616 also bars retaliation: an employer may not penalize, discipline, or discharge an employee for refusing any of those demands, and may not refuse to hire an applicant on that basis. Section 619 sets the enforcement schedule: a Department of Labor fine of not less than $100 for a first violation, not less than $250 for a second violation, and not less than $500 for each subsequent violation. Those amounts are statutory minimums with no ceiling stated, which makes the schedule structurally different from § 620-A's penalty, where $100 to $500 is a genuine range with a $500 maximum.
Together, §§ 615-619 and § 620-A give Maine two separate, purpose-built employee-privacy statutes: one aimed at personal social media accounts, the other aimed at broader workplace surveillance and electronic monitoring. Neither one substitutes for the other.
Federal Baseline and Recording Consent in Maine
Outside of § 620-A's specific notice duty, day-to-day monitoring of an employer-owned phone, computer, or email system in Maine still runs on the federal floor set by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. Under the business-extension exemption at 18 U.S.C. § 2510(5)(a), employer-furnished communications equipment used in the ordinary course of business, a category that reaches an employer that owns the system, falls outside the Wiretap Act's definition of an interception device. Courts have narrowed that exception once a call is identified as personal, as the Eleventh Circuit held in Watkins v. L.M. Berry & Co., 704 F.2d 577 (11th Cir. 1983).

Maine is separately a one-party consent state for recording conversations under 15 M.R.S. § 710. A parallel rule under 17-A M.R.S. § 511 requires all-party consent for observing, recording, or broadcasting sounds or events inside a "private place," defined to include changing or dressing rooms, bathrooms, and similar spaces where a person may reasonably expect to be safe from surveillance. Violating that section is a Class D crime. This cluster does not re-derive Maine's full consent framework; see our guide to Maine recording laws for that analysis.
Video and Audio Surveillance Limits in the Maine Workplace
The practical effect of 17-A M.R.S. § 511 for a Maine employer is straightforward: cameras in general work areas, sales floors, warehouses, hallways, do not implicate the statute, because employees in those spaces do not have the same reasonable expectation of privacy as they do in a changing room or restroom. A hidden camera or microphone in a bathroom, locker room, or similarly private space is a criminal violation of privacy, independent of § 620-A's separate notice requirements for general workplace surveillance.
GPS and Vehicle Tracking
As noted above, § 620-A expressly excludes GPS tracking and other safety devices on employer-owned vehicles from its definition of "employer surveillance," so the new notice statute does not reach standard company-vehicle tracking. Maine has not otherwise enacted a New Jersey-style dedicated vehicle-tracking notice law. For the state's general tracking-device rules outside the employment context, and for a fuller comparison of how other states handle GPS notice, see our guide to Maine GPS tracking laws and the GPS Tracking Laws by State hub.
Biometric Monitoring: Time Clocks and Facial Recognition
Maine has not enacted a biometric-privacy statute comparable to Illinois' Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA), 740 ILCS 14, which requires written consent before an employer collects a fingerprint or facial scan and creates a private right of action with statutory damages. That regime does not extend to Maine. An employer using a fingerprint or facial-recognition time clock in Maine should still consider whether that data collection falls within the scope of "employer surveillance" under § 620-A's broader notice duty, since the statute is not limited to any one technology.

Where to learn more
This guide focuses on the notice, social media, and surveillance rules specific to the employment relationship in Maine. For the state's general recording-consent framework, see Maine recording laws; for vehicle and device tracking outside the workplace, see Maine GPS tracking laws; and for how other states handle notice, passwords, and surveillance, see the Employee Monitoring Laws by State hub.
Disclaimer
This article provides general legal information about Maine employee-monitoring law as of August 31, 2026. It is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Laws change, and how a statute applies depends on specific facts. If you have questions about monitoring at your workplace, or believe your rights under Maine law have been violated, consult a lawyer licensed in Maine.

Related articles
Last updated: August 31, 2026. Statutes cited reflect their in-force version as of that date; 26 M.R.S. § 620-A took effect July 29, 2026.
More Maine Laws
Frequently Asked Questions
When does Maine's new employer surveillance law take effect?
It already has. 26 M.R.S. § 620-A became law without the Governor's signature on January 11, 2026 and took effect on July 29, 2026. Because the section sets no effective date of its own and carries no emergency clause, it took effect 90 days after the Legislature adjourned sine die on April 29, 2026, which the Maine Legislature gives as the general July 29, 2026 effective date for nonemergency laws of that session.
Does my Maine employer have to tell me before it starts monitoring me?
Yes. Subsection 2 of 26 M.R.S. § 620-A says an employer may not use employer surveillance unless the employer notifies the employee before beginning that use. That advance notice is separate from the once-a-year written notice, and the annual notice does not substitute for it.
Does Maine's new surveillance law require notice before GPS-tracking a company vehicle?
No. Section 620-A expressly excludes GPS tracking and other safety devices on vehicles owned by the employer from its definition of 'employer surveillance,' so that specific tracking does not trigger the law's notice duty.
Can my employer make me install a tracking app on my personal phone in Maine?
No. Under 26 M.R.S. § 620-A, an employee may decline a request to install a data-collection or transmission application on the employee's own personal electronic device for employer-surveillance purposes.
Can my Maine employer put a camera in my home to monitor remote work?
Generally no. Section 620-A bars audiovisual monitoring of an employee's residence, personal vehicle, or personal property unless the monitoring is required for the employee's job duties.
Can my employer ask for my social media password in Maine?
No. 26 M.R.S. § 616 bars a Maine employer from requiring or coercing disclosure of a social media password or forced account access, with fines under § 619 of not less than $100 for a first violation and not less than $500 for each violation after the second.
What happens if a Maine employer violates the new surveillance notice law?
The Maine Department of Labor can impose a civil fine of $100 to $500 per violation. The statute does not create a private right of action letting an employee sue the employer directly under § 620-A.
Is Maine a one-party or two-party consent state for recording conversations?
Maine is a one-party consent state under 15 M.R.S. § 710. A separate all-party rule applies inside a 'private place,' such as a bathroom or changing room, under 17-A M.R.S. § 511. See our Maine recording laws guide for the full framework.
Updates
Corrected the effective date of Maine’s employer surveillance law to July 29, 2026, added the statute’s requirement that an employer give notice before surveillance begins, and corrected the social media law’s fines to the statutory minimums they are.
Corrected the description of how LD 61 became law (Maine's own legislative record shows it became law without the Governor's signature, not that she signed it), updated the effective-date framing since the projected July 14, 2026 date has now passed, and added a mention of the statute's personal-care-services exemption.
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources
Governing law re-checked for recent changes
Corrected the source of the employer 'ordinary course of business' monitoring exception from 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(a)(i) (the service-provider exception) to the business-extension exemption at 18 U.S.C. 2510(5)(a), which is the provision employers actually rely on.
Corrected the circuit attribution for Watkins v. L.M. Berry & Co. (11th Cir. 1983).
Governing law re-checked for recent changes
Reviewed and approved by an editor
The Law Behind This Article
This article rests on the statutory provisions below, held in our own legal record and retrieved from the official source. Tap a section to read the operative text.
Maine Revised Statutes, Title 26: LABOR AND INDUSTRY, Chapter 7: EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES
§ 616ProhibitionsIn force
An employer may not: [PL 2015, c. 343, Pt. B, §1 (NEW).] 1. Passwords. Require or coerce an employee or applicant to disclose, or request that an employee or applicant disclose, the password or any other means for accessing a personal social media account; 2. Access in presence. Require or coerce an employee or applicant to access, or request that an employee or applicant access, a personal social media account in the presence of the employer or an agent of the employer; 3. Information. Require or coerce an employee or applicant to disclose any personal social media account information; 4. Contacts. Require or cause an employee or applicant to add anyone, including the employer or an agent of the employer, to the employee's or applicant's list of contacts associated with a personal social media account; 5. Settings. Require or cause an employee or applicant to alter, or request that an employee or applicant alter, settings that affect a 3rd party's ability to view the contents of a personal social media account; 6. Employees.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.maine.gov
§ 619Penalties for violationIn force
An employer who violates this subchapter is subject to a fine imposed by the Department of Labor of not less than $100 for the first violation, not less than $250 for the 2nd violation and not less than $500 for each subsequent violation. [PL 2015, c. 343, Pt. B, §1 (NEW).]
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.maine.gov
Maine Revised Statutes, Title 17-A: MAINE CRIMINAL CODE, Part 2: SUBSTANTIVE OFFENSES, Chapter 21: OFFENSES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER
§ 511Violation of privacyIn forcecited in 15 of our articles
1. A person is guilty of violation of privacy if, except in the execution of a public duty or as authorized by law, that person intentionally: A. Commits a civil trespass on property with the intent to overhear or observe any person in a private place; [PL 1997, c. 467, §1 (AMD).] B. Installs or uses in a private place without the consent of the person or persons entitled to privacy in that place, any device for observing, photographing, recording, amplifying or broadcasting sounds or events in that place; [PL 1997, c. 467, §1 (AMD).] C. Installs or uses outside a private place without the consent of the person or persons entitled to privacy therein any device for observing, photographing, hearing, recording, amplifying or broadcasting images or sounds originating in that place that would not ordinarily be visible, audible or comprehensible outside that place; [PL 2023, c. 227, §1 (AMD).] D.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.maine.gov
Cited in 6 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):In State of Maine v. Mark W. Strong Sr. (2013) the Maine Supreme Judicial Court read section 511(1)(B) to require an objectively reasonable expectation of being safe from surveillance, and held that people who entered a place solely to engage a prostitute were not persons entitled to privacy there.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State of Maine v. Mark W. Strong Sr. (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine 2013, 60 A.3d 1286)✓A man faced 45 counts of violation of privacy for recording the clients of a Kennebunk prostitute; the Law Court held that people present solely to engage a prostitute were not 'persons entitled to privacy' there, so the indictment failed to charge the offense.
- Friedman v. Public Utilities Commission (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine 2012, 48 A.3d 794)“…statutes: 17-A M.R.S. § 402(1) (2011) (criminal trespass), 17-A M.R.S. § 511 (2011) (criminal violation of privacy),…”
- Cuso Mortgage Corp. v. Gauthier (Superior Court of Maine 2012)“…e counts of criminal invasion of privacy, presumably under 17-A M.R.S. § 511(1)(B), for allegedly filming sexual act…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Maine Recording Laws (2026): One-Party Consent, § 710 and § 511, Maine Audio Recording Laws: One-Party Consent Rules and Penalties (2026), Maine Laws on Recording in Public: Your Complete Guide (2026)
United States Code Title 18
§ 2510DefinitionsIn forcecited in 126 of our articles
As used in this chapter— “wire communication” means any aural transfer made in whole or in part through the use of facilities for the transmission of communications by the aid of wire, cable, or other like connection between the point of origin and the point of reception (including the use of such connection in a switching station) furnished or operated by any person engaged in providing or operating such facilities for the transmission of interstate or foreign communications or communications affecting interstate or foreign commerce; “oral communication” means any oral communication uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that such communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such expectation, but such term does not include any electronic communication; “State” means any State of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and any territory or possession of the United States; “intercept” means the aural or other acquisition of the contents of any wire, electronic, or oral communication through the use of any electronic, mechanical, or other device.1 So in original. The period probably should be a semicolon.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 2,382 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):United States v. New York Telephone Co. (1977) held that pen registers fall outside Title III because they do not acquire the contents of a communication as Section 2510(4) and (8) define interception. Forsyth v. Barr (1994) applied the same definitions, treating the defendant officers as law enforcement officers under Section 2510(7).
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Forsyth v. Barr (Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit 1994, 19 F.3d 1527)✓Neighbors tapped an informant's home line and the overheard charges reached Dallas internal affairs; the Fifth Circuit saw no evidence the police defendants intercepted anything and held they were 2510(7) law enforcement officers, so 2517(1) and (2) allowed their use of it.
- Nixon v. Administrator of General Services (Supreme Court of the United States 1977, 433 U.S. 425)“…of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, 18 U. S. C. §§ 2510 et seq. 408 F. Supp., at 363 . We…”
- Gannett Co. v. DePasquale (Supreme Court of the United States 1979, 443 U.S. 368)“…of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, 18 U. S. C. § 2510 et seq., be preserved prior to the d…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Surveillance Camera Laws by State (2026 Guide), US Recording Laws by State (2026): All 50 States Explained, Georgia Recording Laws (2026): One-Party Audio, All-Party Video
Search our full record of US law — 2.1 million sections, every state + federal →
Sources and References
- 26 M.R.S. § 620-A, enacted by P.L. 2025, c. 524 (LD 61), "An Act to Regulate Employer Surveillance to Protect Workers" (Maine Legislature bill text)(legislature.maine.gov).gov
- 26 M.R.S. § 616, Prohibitions (Employee Social Media Privacy) (Maine Legislature)(legislature.maine.gov).gov
- 26 M.R.S. § 619, Penalties for violation (Employee Social Media Privacy) (Maine Legislature)(legislature.maine.gov).gov
- 17-A M.R.S. § 511, Violation of privacy (Maine Legislature)(mainelegislature.org).gov
- Maine Department of Labor, Employer Surveillance: Your Rights (employer notice poster)(maine.gov).gov
- 18 U.S.C. § 2510(5)(a), Definitions — business-extension exemption (Cornell Legal Information Institute)(law.cornell.edu).gov
- Fisher Phillips, "Maine Sets New Restrictions on Workplace Monitoring and Surveillance: What Employers Need to Know"(fisherphillips.com)
- Maine Legislature, session information: the Second Regular Session of the 132nd Legislature convened January 7, 2026 and adjourned sine die April 29, 2026; general effective date for nonemergency laws is July 29, 2026(legislature.maine.gov)
- Maine Legislature, LD 61 (HP 25) bill status, 132nd Legislature: Enacted January 11, 2026; Governor’s Action: Unsigned, January 11, 2026; Chapter 524(legislature.maine.gov)