1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |New Jersey Employers Will be Required to Provide Notice Before Making Use of Tracking Devices in Vehicles Used by Employees

New Jersey Employers Will be Required to Provide Notice Before Making Use of Tracking Devices in Vehicles Used by Employees

Client Alert | 1 min read | 02.23.22

Some employers have historically used tracking devices on vehicles for various business purposes. As of April 18, 2022, New Jersey will require employers, before they make use of a tracking device on an employee-operated vehicle, to notify the employee. An Act Prohibiting Certain Employer Use of Tracking Devices, Assembly Bill No. 3950 (the “Act”), which was signed into law by New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy on January 18, 2022, will apply to all private employers in New Jersey. The Act defines a “tracking device” as an “electronic or mechanical device which is designed or intended to be used for the sole purpose of tracking the movement of a vehicle, person or device,” but does not include “devices used for the purpose of documenting employee expense reimbursement.” Importantly, the Act does not distinguish between employee-owned and employer-owned vehicles, but focuses instead on whether the vehicle is operated by an employee for business purposes.

Under the Act, employers may not “knowingly” make “use of a tracking device on a vehicle used by an employee” without providing written notice to the employee. The Act explicitly does not supersede regulations governing interstate commerce, including but not limited to “usage of electronic communications devices as mandated by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration.”

An employer that violates the Act is subject to a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for the first violation and up to $2,500 for each subsequent violation.

Employers in New Jersey that employ individuals who use vehicles should prepare to comply with the Act prior to April 18, 2022. Specifically, New Jersey employers should identify tracking devices as defined under the Act that are deployed on vehicles used by employees, whether they or the employee own or lease those vehicles. Written notice should then be provided to employees who use those vehicles before they are assigned or otherwise permitted to do so. Similarly, such written notice must be provided to new employees before they are assigned to or otherwise use these vehicles.

Contacts

Insights

Client Alert | 5 min read | 12.12.25

Eleventh Circuit Hears Argument on False Claims Act Qui Tam Constitutionality

On the morning of December 12, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit heard argument in United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, et al., No. 24-13581 (11th Cir. 2025). This case concerns the constitutionality of the False Claims Act (FCA) qui tam provisions and a groundbreaking September 2024 opinion in which the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida held that the FCA’s qui tam provisions were unconstitutional under Article II. See United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Fla. Med. Assocs., LLC, 751 F. Supp. 3d 1293 (M.D. Fla. 2024). That decision, penned by District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, was the first success story for a legal theory that has been gaining steam ever since Justices Thomas, Barrett, and Kavanaugh indicated they would be willing to consider arguments about the constitutionality of the qui tam provisions in U.S. ex rel. Polansky v. Exec. Health Res., 599 U.S. 419 (2023). In her opinion, Judge Mizelle held (1) qui tam relators are officers of the U.S. who must be appointed under the Appointments Clause; and (2) historical practice treating qui tam and similar relators as less than “officers” for constitutional purposes was not enough to save the qui tam provisions from the fundamental Article II infirmity the court identified. That ruling was appealed and, after full briefing, including by the government and a bevy of amici, the litigants stepped up to the plate this morning for oral argument....

View All Insights