UK Government Consults on Workplace Monitoring Technologies

Government Reforms

To date, the Government has largely taken a hands-off approach to regulating AI in the UK, preferring to position the UK as an “AI maker” in line with its AI Opportunities Action Plan published in January 2025. The UK’s approach has been markedly distinct from the approach taken in the EU, whose EU AI Act has provoked significant global discourse on AI regulation both in and out of the workplace. We have written previously about the EU AI Act here.

However, the possibility of regulating AI in the employment sphere has been in the background since the Government published its Plan to Make Work Pay, which included commitments to address concerns around workplace surveillance and discriminatory algorithmic decision-making. This consultation represents the first significant step towards delivering those commitments.

What are Workplace Monitoring Technologies?

The consultation adopts a broad definition of WMT, describing them as digital tools used by employers to collect, track, analyse or make decisions based on information about workers and their activities, including technologies used to “observe performance, behaviour, attendance or communications” and systems that use this data “to inform or make decisions affecting workers.” The consultation acknowledges WMT could operate in physical workplaces or remotely and could incorporate the use of automated decision making, algorithmic management and AI. The consultation gives the following examples of WMT:

• GPS and location-tracking systems;

• Digital activity monitoring (e.g. keystroke monitoring);

• Biometric technologies, such as facial recognition and fingerprint scanning;

• Health and physiological monitoring tools;

• Video monitoring systems; and

• Automated performance evaluation and algorithmic scoring tools

While this definition captures a broad range of monitoring, a significant hurdle for the Government will be creating a definition that stands the test of time. This has already been an issue faced by the EU’s AI Act (for example, the first draft of the AI Act in April 2021 did not anticipate the use of generative AI and pre-dated the release of ChatGPT by nearly 18 months) and is something with which the Government is grappling in this consultation as it considers further regulation. Unlike the EU AI Act, however, the consultation is not proposing a risk-based AI regulatory regime and instead focuses on employment relations, transparency and worker engagement.

Existing Legal Protections

While the Government is considering reforms, it is important to note that this consultation is not starting from a blank slate: a range of existing legal frameworks already govern workplace monitoring in the UK.

From a data protection perspective, employers must comply with existing UK data protection laws including by ensuring personal data processing is lawful, fair and proportionate, and by providing individuals with clear information regarding how their data is used and, where applicable, how automated decision-making and profiling systems operate.

UK data protection laws further provide that where solely automated decisions based entirely or partly on the processing of special category data produce legal or similarly significant effects, organisations must ensure workers can obtain information about the decision, make representations, seek human intervention and challenge outcomes (see our article here on recent developments in this regard).

In addition, employers remain subject to employment law and equality law obligations when using WMT, meaning decisions informed by monitoring technologies or algorithmic systems must be fair and non-discriminatory. Employers remain responsible for outcomes produced by such systems.

However, despite the breadth of existing legal principles, the Government considers that existing protections are not consistently understood or applied, and therefore believes further steps may be needed to improve transparency, worker engagement and accountability in relation to WMT.

The Consultation

The Government is seeking views on three broad options for intervention. While there are different possible approaches to intervention, the options are supported by eight core principles intended to underpin the responsible use of WMT, including purpose and rationale; transparency and understanding; worker engagement and voice; fairness and equality; necessity, proportionality and privacy; human oversight and accountability; dignity and wellbeing; and accuracy, reliability and review.

An important theme running through the consultation is the extent to which any intervention should protect not only employees, but also a broader category of workers who may be subject to WMT. The consultation acknowledges that each option put forward may have different implications for the scope of coverage. It also recognises that extending any new framework beyond employees raises practical and legal challenges, particularly given the different statutory rights and workplace structures that apply to different categories of worker.

Option 1: A Statutory Code of Practice

The first option is to put in place a statutory Code of Practice, supported by non-statutory guidance.

The consultation states that the proposed Code would not create new legal obligations but is intended to establish practical and clear expectations regarding the responsible use of WMT following the Government’s eight principles. Employment Tribunals could take compliance with the Code into account when considering relevant claims, such as unfair dismissal or discrimination, and, in appropriate cases, compensation could potentially be increased by up to 25% where an employer unreasonably failed to follow the Code. The Code would also be supplemented by non-statutory guidance which would provide more detailed practical support for employers and workers.

While it is hoped that a statutory Code would provide a balanced approach, to improve clarity for both employers and workers without creating new requirements on employers, it is acknowledged that its impact and legal effect would be limited and would depend on it being relevant in existing Employment Tribunal litigation. The Government’s intention is that the Code would cover both employees and workers, but recognises that workers generally have access to a narrower range of Employment Tribunal claims than employees. This means the practical impact of a statutory Code may be uneven between categories of worker who are nevertheless subject to WMT, with employees more likely to benefit from the Code’s legal effect than other workers.

Option 2: A Statutory Duty to Consult and Negotiate

The second, and potentially most significant, option would create a new statutory requirement via primary legislation for employers to consult and negotiate with a view to agreement with trade unions or elected staff representatives before introducing, or significantly changing, WMT.

Although key design considerations are explored, the Government envisages a process through which employers would be required to provide relevant information and give workers a genuine opportunity to influence outcomes, although agreement would not necessarily be required before implementation could proceed. It is proposed that enforcement could be carried out via the Employment Tribunal system with potential protective awards in cases of non-compliance.

While this option would likely enhance worker voice and transparency, the consultation acknowledges concerns regarding complexity, compliance burdens and the practical difficulty of applying consultation requirements to technologies that evolve incrementally over time. The consultation also explicitly seeks views on whether any legislative requirement should apply only to employees, to employees and workers, or to all non-self-employed individuals exposed to WMT (noting the Government has not indicated a preference on this issue). Questions arise as to how any consultation obligation would operate in relation to workers who are not employees, particularly those engaged through more fragmented or platform-based working arrangements. In those environments, identifying appropriate representatives and ensuring meaningful consultation may be significantly more challenging, which could make the design and implementation of any new consultation duty more complex.

This option would introduce some similarities with the position under the EU AI Act, which provides that before putting into service or using a “high-risk AI system” at the workplace, employers must inform worker representatives and affected workers that they will be subject to the use of high-risk AI, although this doesn’t go as far as imposing a requirement to consult and negotiate as is considered in the consultation.  

Option 3: Non-Statutory Guidance

The third option is the publication of non-statutory guidance aimed at helping employers understand and implement good practice, again in line with the Government’s eight principles. The Government presents this as the most flexible and lowest-burden approach, capable of evolving alongside technological developments. However, it also recognises that guidance alone may have limited influence on employers who are already failing to meet best practice standards.  The consultation suggests that the guidance would apply to both employees and workers and could be tailored to reflect different workplace contexts, however it acknowledges that it may be less effective in environments which are more reliant on remote or platform working.

Of the three options, the proposed duty to consult and negotiate would create the greatest practical and administrative burden, particularly where technologies are introduced incrementally or updated on a frequent basis, but it remains to be seen whether this is a step the Government will take. The consultation notes too that no intervention may remain a legitimate outcome if evidence does not demonstrate a clear problem in relation to WMT.

What Does this Mean for Employers?

The consultation does not propose immediate legal changes. However, it sits within the wider direction of travel under the Employment Rights Act 2025 reforms: a stronger role for worker voice, trade unions and staff representatives in shaping workplace decisions. In that context, workplace technology is unlikely to remain a purely management-led issue. Even if the outcome is guidance or a Code rather than a new statutory duty, employers should expect greater scrutiny of how they explain, justify and consult on the introduction and use of monitoring, AI and workforce analytics tools in the workplace.  

The consultation closes on 30 September 2026. Employers who are impacted by this consultation may wish to respond and can do so here.