Washington Joins States Limiting Employer-Mandated Worker Microchipping

On March 11, Washington Gov. Bob Ferguson (D) signed HB 2303. The law, which takes effect June 11, bars employers from requesting, requiring or coercing workers or job applicants to accept a subcutaneous microchip implant, while exempting devices used for diagnosis, monitoring, treatment or prevention of a health condition. The law also provides a private right of action, allowing employees harmed by employers that violate the law to seek injunctive relief, actual damages, punitive damages and attorneys’ fees and costs.

The legislation is part of a broader state trend toward preemptive limits on employer-driven microchip implants. At least 11 other states already had laws prohibiting the mandatory microchipping of employees in place before Washington enacted HB 2303, according to LexisNexis® State Net® data. The laws in Alabama (Code of Ala. § 25-1-4) and Nevada (Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 200.870) make forced microchipping a felony.

“Microchips may seem like science fiction, but the technology is here,” said Washington Rep. Brianna Thomas (D), the author of HB 2303, in a press release. “The concept is pretty simple. Don’t chip me, bro!”

In all seriousness, she added, forced microchipping “creates an opportunity for employers to track employees during work hours and at home. That is scary. We recognize that the power dynamic between an employer and an employee makes true freedom of choice nearly impossible. This is a big step to help protect our employees from being microchipped by their employer.”

Legislators Remain Concerned about Employer Surveillance

In the House Bill Report for HB 2303, legislative staff wrote that the practice of implanting microchips into workers “has not yet occurred in Washington.”

But lawyer Scott Prange of the national law firm Davis Wright Tremaine LLP wrote that while this forced employee microchipping isn’t happening “in any widespread way—at least not yet,” the technology not only exists but is “increasingly normalized in certain contexts.”

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration cleared the VeriChip system for medical use in 2004, allowing an implanted ID number to be used to retrieve patient identity and authorized health information from a secure database.

“Outside healthcare, these implants—typically about the size of a grain of rice—can function as ID badges or enable contactless payments,” Prange wrote. “In practical terms, an RFID chip could replace access badges, unlock doors, access computer networks, enable cashless purchases, and streamline everyday workplace tasks. From an employer perspective, proponents point to potential benefits like reduced administrative costs, improved efficiency, and even the ability to track certain aspects of employee activity.”

Prange said legislators are concerned about microchipping because of “the broader implications to worker surveillance and individual autonomy.”

“Because these devices are embedded and not easily turned off (or removed), it becomes far less clear where an employee’s privacy rights begin and end—particularly for workers expected to remain connected or responsive outside traditional working hours,” he wrote.

“HB 2303 reflects the legislature’s efforts to ‘hardwire’ boundaries before that monitoring crosses from devices employees carry to the bodies they inhabit.”

Worker Microchipping Laws Enacted in Dozen States

At least 11 states have laws in effect prohibiting employers from requiring employees to be implanted with a microchip or other permanent identification marker as a condition of employment, according to State Net® data. Washington enacted a worker microchipping ban (HB 2303) this year that takes effect on June 11. Three other states considered bills this year dealing with worker microchipping.

Human Microchipping Remains Rare

The Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs reported in 2024 that more than 50,000 people had received microchip implants that can act as credit cards, swipe keys or allow them to instantly share social media information.

In 2017, a Wisconsin company called Three Square Market held a “chip party” where 41 of its 85 employees volunteered to be microchipped in what company leaders said was the first U.S. use of technology already used in Europe.

Microchipping has also drawn a fair amount of interest in Sweden; NPR reported in 2018 that more than 4,000 Swedes elected to implant the devices, with the company Biohax International dominating the market.

In the United States, microchipping is much more common for pets and other animals. And legislative efforts are currently focused there. As of April 10, over 40 bills mentioning some form of the word “microchip” had been introduced by state lawmakers, according to the LexisNexis® State Net® legislative tracking system. But only four of those measures concern human implantation:

• Washington’s new law, HB 2303;

• Minnesota SF 4881, which, like the Washington bill, would prohibit employers from requesting, requiring or coercing employees or job applicants to be microchipped and create a private right of action for violations;

• Oklahoma SB 1656, a much broader bodily-autonomy bill that would establish a “right to refuse any vaccine, medication, microchip, external tracker, or other manufactured product” and prohibit public and private entities from requiring such things in order to receive “public services, admittance to an educational institution, employment, consumer goods or services, access to a place of public accommodation, or any other privilege or right;” and

• Tennessee HB 1877, which would have barred government entities from requiring a microchip or other permanent ID marker in order to receive benefits or services, and barred employers from requiring microchipping as a condition of employment, with violators subject to civil penalties up to $10,000, as well as private lawsuits for actual and punitive damages and attorneys’ fees. The measure would also have made it a Class E felony for individuals, including certain insurance licensees and professional bondsmen, to require someone to be microchipped. But after being referred to subcommittee on February 2, the measure was withdrawn.

The other 30-plus measures deal with the microchipping of animals.

Although human microchipping remains uncommon, Washington HB 2303 fits a wider state trend of setting privacy and autonomy limits before implantable technology becomes an issue in the workplace and elsewhere.

—By SNCJ Correspondent BRIAN JOSEPH

Visit our webpage to connect with a LexisNexis® State Net® representative and learn how the State Net legislative and regulatory tracking service can help you identify, track, analyze and report on relevant legislative and regulatory developments.