Nevada
Nevada Employee Monitoring Laws: Workplace Surveillance and Social Media (2026)
Independently fact-checked against primary sources (last audited August 17, 2026). · Reviewed by the RecordingLaw editorial team. · Law checked current as of August 17, 2026. · 7 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content
Nevada employers can monitor work email, phone lines, and company computer systems under the federal wiretap law's business-use exception, but that exception intersects with a state consent rule that is stricter than it first appears. Nevada is a hybrid state: in-person conversations need only one party's consent, but the Nevada Supreme Court has held that telephone and wire calls need every party's consent, which changes how "ordinary course of business" monitoring works for phone lines specifically.
This article provides general legal information about Nevada employee monitoring law as of July 9, 2026. It is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Consult a Nevada-licensed attorney about your specific situation.
Scope: This article covers Nevada law on an employer's authority to monitor employees, access personal social media, and conduct workplace video, GPS, and biometric monitoring. It does not re-derive Nevada's general recording consent rules in full (see our Nevada recording laws guide) or GPS law generally outside the employment context (see our Nevada GPS tracking laws guide).
The Federal Baseline: the "Ordinary Course of Business" Exception
Nevada's starting point for any workplace monitoring question is federal, not state, law. Title I of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act makes it unlawful to intentionally intercept wire, oral, or electronic communications without consent (18 U.S.C. § 2511; see also sections 2510-2523), but the statute carves out a broad exception for the owner of a communications system. Under the business-extension exemption in 18 U.S.C. section 2510(5)(a), employer-furnished telephone and communications equipment used by the subscriber or user in the ordinary course of business falls outside the Act's definition of an interception device, a doctrine courts have extended to employers who own the phone, email, and computer systems their staff use to monitor communications on that system in the ordinary course of business.
The leading case applying this exception is Watkins v. L.M. Berry & Co., 704 F.2d 577 (11th Cir. 1983), where an employer monitored a sales line as part of a standing training program. The court held that once a monitored call is determined to be personal rather than business-related, the employer's ordinary-course exception generally ends, and continued listening can create liability. Nevada layers its own, notably strict, consent rule for phone calls on top of this federal baseline, described below.
How Nevada's Hybrid Consent Rule Affects Employer Monitoring
Most one-party states let an employer treat itself as a "party" to any call routed through its own phone system, making the consent question straightforward. Nevada is different. NRS 200.650 allows one-party consent for in-person conversations, but the Nevada Supreme Court held in Lane v. Allstate Ins. Co., 114 Nev. 1176, 969 P.2d 938 (1998), a fractured decision on a certified question (a lead opinion joined by separate opinions concurring in part from two other justices, and a dissent from a fourth), that NRS 200.620 requires every participant's consent before a telephone or wire communication may be recorded, reasoning that the Legislature's silence on one-party consent in the phone-call statute (unlike the in-person statute) was deliberate. Recording a phone call without every participant's consent is a Category D felony carrying one to four years in prison and a fine of up to $5,000.
For a Nevada employer, this means the federal ordinary-course exception and Nevada's own consent statute do not automatically line up for phone monitoring the way they do in many other one-party states. Live call monitoring for quality assurance or training generally still relies on the ordinary-course exception together with employee acknowledgment of a monitoring policy (functioning as implied or express consent), but an employer that wants to record and retain calls should treat Nevada functionally like an all-party state for that purpose. This is a narrower, employment-specific note; for the full framework on Nevada's split consent rule, including in-person conversations, see our Nevada recording laws guide and our Nevada workplace recording guide.
Does Nevada Require Notice Before Electronic Monitoring?
No. A small group of states, Connecticut, Delaware, New York, and (starting in 2026) Maine, require employers to give employees written or posted notice before monitoring phone, email, or internet use on the job. Nevada has not enacted a comparable statute. A Nevada employer that wants to monitor company email or internet use on employer-owned systems can generally do so relying on the federal ordinary-course exception, without a state-mandated notice or acknowledgment step, though as described above, the consent analysis for phone calls specifically is stricter.
Nevada's Social Media Privacy Law for Employees
Nevada's dedicated employee monitoring statute is NRS 613.135, which makes it unlawful for an employer to directly or indirectly require, request, suggest, or cause an employee or prospective employee to disclose a username, password, or other information that provides access to a personal social media account. "Social media account" is defined broadly to include videos, photographs, blogs, video blogs, podcasts, instant and text messages, email programs, and online service or website profiles. An employer also cannot discharge, discipline, discriminate against, or deny employment or a promotion to a worker who refuses such a demand.
The statute has a narrow exception: it is not unlawful for an employer to require disclosure of credentials to an account or service, other than a personal social media account, that the employer uses to access its own internal computer or information system, and it does not limit an employer's ability to comply with other state or federal law or self-regulatory rules. NRS 613.135 sets out no penalty, names no enforcing agency, and creates no express private right of action, and Nevada's broader unlawful-employment-practices framework does not fill that gap. NRS 613.320 applies that framework only to NRS 613.133 and NRS 613.310 to 613.4383, inclusive, a range that does not include NRS 613.135. The chapter's general penalty provision, NRS 613.050, reaches only violations of NRS 613.040 to 613.070. And the Labor Commissioner right-to-sue notice in NRS 613.134 is available only on a complaint filed under NRS 613.133, which concerns wage or salary history. The remedy for a NRS 613.135 violation is therefore unsettled, so an affected employee or applicant should document the request in writing and consult a Nevada-licensed employment attorney about what claim, if any, the facts support.
GPS and Vehicle Tracking of Nevada Employees
Nevada has not enacted a dedicated employer vehicle-tracking notice statute comparable to New Jersey's N.J. Stat. section 34:6B-22. The state's relevant general-purpose law is NRS 200.930, unlawful installation of a mobile tracking device, which makes it a crime to knowingly install, conceal, or otherwise place a mobile tracking device in or on another person's motor vehicle without the knowledge and consent of an owner or lessor. The penalty is graduated: a first offense is a misdemeanor, a second offense is a gross misdemeanor, and a third or subsequent offense is a category C felony under NRS 193.130. Because the statute is built around owner or lessor consent, an employer that owns or leases the vehicle it wants to track is the consenting party, not a violator, so this criminal statute generally does not stand in the way of standard company-vehicle GPS tracking.
That owner-consent framework means Nevada employees generally cannot stop an employer from GPS-tracking a company vehicle under NRS 200.930, but it does not resolve every practical question, particularly when an employee drives the same vehicle off duty or a tracker also logs an employee's personal cell phone location. For the general legal framework governing tracking devices in Nevada, including United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012), see our Nevada GPS tracking laws guide.
Video and Audio Surveillance in Nevada Workplaces
Nevada has no employment-specific video-surveillance statute, but its general criminal law limits where a camera, employer-owned or not, can point. NRS 200.604 prohibits knowingly and intentionally capturing an image of a person's private area, defined as the naked or undergarment-clad genitals, pubic area, buttocks, or female breast, without consent, in circumstances where the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy. A first offense is a gross misdemeanor; a second or subsequent offense is a Category E felony. The statute also separately prohibits distributing, disclosing, or publishing an image known to have been captured in violation of the law.
An employer that installs a camera in a restroom, locker room, or similar space, even for a stated loss-prevention reason, is exposed to criminal liability under this statute just as any other person would be. Cameras in common work areas, sales floors, warehouses, and entrances are generally permissible without a state-specific notice requirement, subject to general reasonableness limits under common-law invasion-of-privacy claims. Audio recording of employee conversations is governed by Nevada's hybrid consent rule described above; our Nevada workplace recording guide covers that consent question, including an employee's own right to record conversations at work, in depth.
Biometric Monitoring: Time Clocks and Nevada's Health Data Law
Employers increasingly use fingerprint or facial-recognition time clocks, and in trucking, driver-facing cameras that can capture biometric identifiers. Illinois' Biometric Information Privacy Act, 740 ILCS 14, is the strongest law of this kind nationally, requiring written consent before collection and creating a private right of action; it does not apply outside Illinois. Nevada employees do not have an Illinois-style, general-purpose biometric consent statute.
Nevada's biometric-adjacent protection sits inside NRS Chapter 603A. NRS 603A.415 defines "biometric data" broadly, covering imagery of a person's fingerprint, palm print, voiceprint, face, retina, iris, or vein pattern, plus keystroke and gait patterns that contain identifying information. The Nevada Consumer Health Data Privacy Act provisions at NRS 603A.400 to 603A.550 require a consumer's affirmative, voluntary consent before a regulated entity collects consumer health data.
The reason that consent duty does not help a Nevada employee standing at a fingerprint time clock is not that attendance data lacks a health component. It is that the Act excludes the workplace outright. NRS 603A.425 defines "consumer" as a natural person who has requested a product or service from a regulated entity, and provides expressly that the term "does not include a natural person acting in an employment context." Because the collection and consent duties in NRS 603A.500 run only to a "consumer," NRS 603A.400 to 603A.550 does not apply to an employer collecting biometric data from its own employees, whether or not that data relates to a health condition. NRS 603A.550 separately states that those provisions create no private right of action. Nevada employees are left to rely mainly on employer policy and common-law privacy claims. See our Nevada biometric privacy guide and our Nevada Consumer Health Data Law guide for how these rules work outside the employment context.
Spotter Reports and Workplace Investigators: NRS 613.160
One older Chapter 613 provision is easy to miss and is still in force. NRS 613.160 applies to an employer that uses a "special agent, detective or person commonly known as a spotter" to investigate and report on its employees. It makes it unlawful for that employer to discipline or discharge an employee based on such a report, where the report involves a question of integrity, honesty, or a breach of the employer's rules, unless the employer gives the accused employee notice and a hearing when the employee requests one. At that hearing the employee must have the opportunity to confront the person who made the report and the right to furnish testimony in his or her defense.
Unlike NRS 613.135, this section carries a stated penalty: $5,000 for each offense, recovered in a suit brought in the name of the State of Nevada by the Attorney General, or under his or her direction by the district attorney. The provision is archaic and procedural rather than a modern monitoring-notice rule, and it says nothing about electronic surveillance. It matters in the narrow case where an employer builds a discipline or discharge decision on a covert human investigator's report.
What Nevada Employees Can Do About Monitoring Concerns
An employee who believes an employer crossed a legal line has a few concrete options depending on what happened. A demand for a social media password is unlawful under NRS 613.135, though as described above that section names no enforcement route. A camera in a restroom or locker room can support both a report to law enforcement under NRS 200.604 and a civil invasion-of-privacy claim. A phone call recorded without every participant's consent can support a claim under NRS 200.620 independent of any workplace monitoring policy. Monitoring tied to a protected characteristic, retaliation for a workers' compensation claim, or interference with concerted activity under the National Labor Relations Act may also fall under the Nevada Equal Rights Commission or the National Labor Relations Board rather than a monitoring-specific statute.
Because Nevada's monitoring rules are split across several distinct sources, criminal privacy and wiretap law, NRS 613.135 and NRS 613.160, general tort law, and federal wiretap and labor law, an employee with a specific fact pattern should keep records (dates, what was monitored, any written policy) and consult a Nevada-licensed employment attorney rather than assume a single statute covers the situation. For the broader 50-state picture, see our Employee Monitoring Laws by State hub and our general US recording laws guide.
Disclaimer
This article provides general legal information about Nevada employee monitoring law as of July 9, 2026. It is not a substitute for individualized legal advice. Employment monitoring disputes often involve overlapping statutes, employer policy, and federal law, and outcomes depend on specific facts. Readers should consult an attorney licensed in Nevada for advice about a particular situation.
Related articles
- Employee Monitoring Laws by State
- Nevada Recording Laws
- Nevada Workplace Recording Laws
- Nevada GPS Tracking Laws
- Nevada Biometric Privacy Laws
- US Recording Laws by State
Last updated: July 9, 2026. Statutes cited reflect their in-force version as of that date.
More Nevada Laws
Frequently Asked Questions
Can my employer read my work email in Nevada?
Generally yes, once the email is on an employer-owned system. Nevada has no state notice statute, so employers typically rely on the business-extension exemption in 18 U.S.C. section 2510(5)(a), which excludes ordinary-course-of-business use of employer-provided equipment from the Wiretap Act's definition of an interception device, to review company email and internet use.
Can my employer record my work phone calls in Nevada?
This is more restrictive than in most one-party states. The Nevada Supreme Court held in Lane v. Allstate Ins. Co. (1998) that NRS 200.620 requires every participant's consent to record a telephone call, so an employer generally needs employee acknowledgment of a monitoring policy, or another valid consent basis, before recording and retaining calls.
Can my employer ask for my Facebook or Instagram password in Nevada?
No, not for personal accounts. NRS 613.135 prohibits an employer from requiring, requesting, or suggesting that an employee or applicant disclose personal social media login information, and from retaliating against someone who refuses.
Does Nevada law require my employer to tell me I'm being monitored?
Not by a dedicated statute. Unlike Connecticut, Delaware, New York, and Maine, Nevada has not enacted a general electronic-monitoring notice law, so no state-mandated written or posted notice is required before monitoring employer-owned systems.
Can my employer GPS track a company vehicle I drive in Nevada?
Generally yes. NRS 200.930 requires the vehicle owner's or lessor's consent before a tracking device is installed, and an employer that owns or leases the vehicle is the consenting party. No Nevada statute requires special employee notice for company-vehicle GPS tracking.
Can my employer put a camera in a Nevada workplace restroom or locker room?
No. NRS 200.604 prohibits capturing an image of a person's private area without consent in a place where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy, including restrooms and locker rooms, and this applies to employer-installed cameras just as it applies to anyone else.
Can my Nevada employer require a fingerprint scan for the time clock?
There is no Illinois-style general biometric consent statute in Nevada. A fingerprint time clock used only for attendance generally falls outside the health-data consent requirements in NRS Chapter 603A, so employees mainly rely on employer policy and common-law privacy claims.
What can I do if my Nevada employer violates the social media password law?
The remedy is unsettled. NRS 613.135 supplies no penalty, no enforcing agency, and no express private right of action, and Nevada's unlawful-employment-practices framework does not cover it, because NRS 613.320 applies that framework only to NRS 613.133 and NRS 613.310 to 613.4383, inclusive. Document the request in writing and consult a Nevada-licensed employment attorney about what claim may be available on your facts.
Updates
Corrected the biometrics and social media sections: Nevada's Consumer Health Data Privacy Act excludes people acting in an employment context, so it does not govern employer collection of employee biometrics at all, and NRS 613.135 falls outside Chapter 613's unlawful-employment-practices framework, so the remedy for a social media password demand is unsettled rather than a Labor Commissioner complaint. Added Nevada's spotter statute, NRS 613.160.
Corrected the description of Lane v. Allstate Ins. Co. (1998) from a '3-2 decision' to an accurate fractured/plurality decision among the four participating justices, and restored NRS 200.930's full graduated penalty (misdemeanor, then gross misdemeanor, then category C felony for repeat offenses) where it had been flattened to a flat misdemeanor.
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes
Governing law re-checked for recent changes
Corrected the citation for the employer 'ordinary course of business' monitoring doctrine: it rests on the business-extension exemption in 18 U.S.C. 2510(5)(a), not the service-provider exception in 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(a)(i).
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.
Nevada Revised Statutes, Chapter 613: EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES
§ 613.135Unlawful acts of employer relating to social media account of employee or prospective employee.In force
1. It is unlawful for any employer in this State to: (a) Directly or indirectly, require, request, suggest or cause any employee or prospective employee to disclose the user name, password or any other information that provides access to his or her personal social media account. (b) Discharge, discipline, discriminate against in any manner or deny employment or promotion to, or threaten to take any such action against any employee or prospective employee who refuses, declines or fails to disclose the user name, password or any other information that provides access to his or her personal social media account. 2. It is not unlawful for an employer in this State to require an employee to disclose the user name, password or any other information to an account or a service, other than a personal social media account, for the purpose of accessing the employer’s own internal computer or information system. 3. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent an employer from complying with any state or federal law or regulation or with any rule of a self-regulatory organization, as defined in NRS 90.300.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at leg.state.nv.us
United States Code Title 18
§ 2511Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibitedIn forcecited in 422 of our articles
Except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter any person who— intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, any wire, oral, or electronic communication; intentionally uses, endeavors to use, or procures any other person to use or endeavor to use any electronic, mechanical, or other device to intercept any oral communication when— such device is affixed to, or otherwise transmits a signal through, a wire, cable, or other like connection used in wire communication; or such device transmits communications by radio, or interferes with the transmission of such communication; or such person knows, or has reason to know, that such device or any component thereof has been sent through the mail or transported in interstate or foreign commerce; or such use or endeavor to use (A) takes place on the premises of any business or other commercial establishment the operations of which affect interstate or foreign commerce; or (B) obtains or is for the purpose of obtaining information relating to the operations of any business or other commercial establishment the operations of which affect interstate or foreign…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 2,045 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Griggs-Ryan v. Smith (1990) applied the Section 2511(2)(d) prior-consent exception, treating a tenant repeatedly told that all incoming calls were taped as having impliedly consented. United States v. United States District Court (1972) read the then-current Section 2511(3) as conferring no presidential surveillance power.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Mitchell v. Forsyth (Supreme Court of the United States 1985, 472 U.S. 511)✓The Attorney General authorized a warrantless 1970 national security wiretap that caught the plaintiff's calls; the Court held the since-repealed Section 2511(3) disclaimer left the tap lawful under Title III, and that Mitchell had qualified immunity.
- United States v. United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (Supreme Court of the United States 1972, 407 U.S. 297)✓The Attorney General approved warrantless wiretaps on members of a domestic group accused of bombing a CIA office; the Court read Section 2511(3) as a congressional disclaimer conferring no surveillance power, then held the Fourth Amendment required prior judicial approval.
- Forsyth v. Barr (Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit 1994, 19 F.3d 1527)✓Dallas police used, in an internal affairs probe of an officer, calls private parties allegedly intercepted illegally; assuming that was unlawful, the Fifth Circuit held Section 2517(1) and (2) allowed the disclosure and use, defeating the Section 2511(1)(c) and (d) claims.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Connecticut Recording Laws (2026): Hybrid Consent Rules Explained, Oregon Recording Laws (2026): Hybrid One-Party and All-Party Rules, US Recording Laws by State (2026): All 50 States Explained
§ 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), Georgia Recording Laws (2026): One-Party Audio, All-Party Video, District of Columbia Recording Laws (2026): One-Party Consent Rules
Nevada Revised Statutes, Chapter 200: CRIMES AGAINST THE PERSON
§ 200.930Penalty; definitions.In forcecited in 2 of our articles
1. Except as otherwise provided in subsection 2, a person commits the crime of unlawful installation of a mobile tracking device if the person knowingly installs, conceals or otherwise places a mobile tracking device in or on the motor vehicle of another person without the knowledge and consent of an owner or lessor of the motor vehicle. 2. The provisions of subsection 1 do not apply to a law enforcement agency that installs, conceals or otherwise places a mobile tracking device in or on a motor vehicle in accordance with all applicable requirements of the United States Constitution, the Nevada Constitution and the laws of this State. 3. A person who commits the crime of unlawful installation of a mobile tracking device is guilty of: (a) For the first offense, a misdemeanor. (b) For the second offense, a gross misdemeanor. (c) For the third or any subsequent offense, a category C felony and shall be punished as provided in NRS 193.130.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at leg.state.nv.us
§ 200.604Capturing image of private area of another person; distributing, disclosing, displaying, transmitting or publishing image of private area of another person; penalties; exceptions; confidentiality of image.In forcecited in 12 of our articles
1. Except as otherwise provided in subsection 4, a person shall not knowingly and intentionally capture an image of the private area of another person: (a) Without the consent of the other person; and (b) Under circumstances in which the other person has a reasonable expectation of privacy. 2. Except as otherwise provided in subsection 4, a person shall not distribute, disclose, display, transmit or publish an image that the person knows or has reason to know was made in violation of subsection 1. 3. Unless a greater penalty is provided pursuant to NRS 200.780 or 212.188, a person who violates this section: (a) For a first offense, is guilty of a gross misdemeanor. (b) For a second or subsequent offense, is guilty of a category E felony and shall be punished as provided in NRS 193.130. 4. This section does not prohibit any lawful law enforcement or correctional activity, including, without limitation, capturing, distributing, disclosing, displaying, transmitting or publishing an image for the purpose of investigating or prosecuting a violation of this section.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at leg.state.nv.us
Cited in 4 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2018
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Coleman v. State (Nevada Supreme Court 2018, 416 P.3d 238)“…By the Court, PICKERING, J.: NRS 200.604 prohibits a person from knowingly and i…”
- COLEMAN (SOLOMON) VS. STATE (Nevada Supreme Court 2018, 2018 NV 28)“…y the Court, PICKERING, J.: NRS 200.604 prohibits a person from knowingly and…”
- Brian Olsen v. City of Henderson (Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 2016, 648 F. App'x 628)“…amily. Nichols reasonably believed that Olsen had violated Nev. Rev. Stat. § 200.604 by capturing and publishing to his per…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Nevada Smart Glasses Recording Laws 2026
Explore the law
This article also draws on these acts and chapters (opening at their first section): Nevada Revised Statutes, Chapter 603A: SECURITY AND PRIVACY OF PERSONAL INFORMATION § 603A.010 (Definitions.)
Related law for further reading — not part of this article’s citations.
Search our full record of US law — 2.1 million sections, every state + federal →
Sources and References
- NRS 613.135, Unlawful acts of employer relating to social media account of employee or prospective employee(leg.state.nv.us).gov
- 18 U.S.C. section 2510(5)(a), business-extension exemption for employer-provided communications equipment used in the ordinary course of business(law.cornell.edu).gov
- Watkins v. L.M. Berry & Co., 704 F.2d 577 (11th Cir. 1983)(law.resource.org)
- Lane v. Allstate Ins. Co., 114 Nev. 1176, 969 P.2d 938 (1998)(courtlistener.com)
- NRS 200.620 and NRS 200.650, wire communications and eavesdropping consent requirements(leg.state.nv.us).gov
- NRS 200.930, Unlawful installation of a mobile tracking device; penalty; definitions(leg.state.nv.us).gov
- NRS 200.604, Capturing image of private area of another person; penalties; exceptions(leg.state.nv.us).gov
- NRS Chapter 603A, Security and Privacy of Personal Information (including Nevada Consumer Health Data Privacy Act provisions)(leg.state.nv.us).gov
- 18 U.S.C. § 2511 – Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibited(uscode.house.gov).gov
- NRS 613.160, Spotters: Right of employee to be confronted with accuser; penalty(leg.state.nv.us)
- NRS 613.320, Applicability of NRS 613.133 and 613.310 to 613.4383, inclusive(leg.state.nv.us)
- NRS 603A.425, "Consumer" defined (excludes a natural person acting in an employment context)(leg.state.nv.us)
- NRS 603A.500, Collection and sharing of consumer health data by regulated entity; consent requirements(leg.state.nv.us)