San Mateo County, California Regulates AI-Controlled Robots in Workplaces

San Mateo County, California enacted an ordinance establishing what County officials describe as a first-of-its-kind permitting system governing robots in the workplace. The ordinance, which applies to covered businesses operating in unincorporated areas of San Mateo County, took effect October 29, 2026. While the ordinance covers many types of employers with public-facing businesses, hospitality employers will be particularly impacted if they have already deployed or are in the process of deploying robots as servers or food-delivery assistants.

Who and What Is Covered?

A “covered establishment” generally includes a business or commercial operation with a physical location that sells goods or services, serves the public, and operates in unincorporated San Mateo County. The definition expressly includes restaurants, cafés, hospitality venues, and other public-facing businesses. 

Covered establishments must obtain a County permit before operating qualifying robots. As defined in the ordinance, regulated robots use cameras or sensors, operate at least partly without human control in areas accessible to workers or the public, and use rechargeable lithium-ion batteries. Permit applicants must provide information concerning the robot's manufacturer, safety history and recalls, and demonstrate compliance with applicable safety, accessibility, privacy, and food-safety requirements. 

A robot is considered fully or partially autonomous if, for any amount of time, it operates without human control, including any robot that partially or fully relies on external or offsite computing power.  The ordinance extends to robots controlled by remote operators if, at any point, the robot is fully or partially autonomous. Permanently stationary automation technology such as self-checkout kiosks, and permanently restricted-path automation such as fixed rail kitchen equipment, are not covered technologies. Toys weighing under 30 pounds designed for personal use, or robots used solely in private residences, are also excluded from coverage.

Permits for robot operation are valid for one year, and the covered establishment must renew its permit annually to continue to operate or allow operation of any covered robot.

Worker Displacement Implications

The ordinance is notable because it regulates not only how robots operate, but also links whether they can be used to their effect on employees. As part of the permit application process, a covered business must submit an Economic Impact Assessment addressing anticipated effects on human employment and a Workforce Mitigation Plan addressing options for displaced workers. 

The Workforce Mitigation Plan must provide for at least one of three options in the event the deployment of a covered robot results in worker displacement:

• Redeployment of the workers to an equivalent position at equal or greater compensation;
• Transition assistance, including at least 60 days' advance written notice and four weeks of standard pay as severance; or
• Payment of a County Automation Impact Fee into a workforce retraining fund. 

Workplace Safety Requirements

With respect to safety, the County identified fire risks associated with lithium-ion batteries. Employers should evaluate whether existing fire-protection equipment is appropriate for the type and capacity of lithium-ion batteries used by the robots, recognizing that lithium-ion battery fires can involve thermal runaway, propagation to adjacent cells, and re-ignition even after visible flames have been extinguished. Emergency response procedures should address whether employees should attempt extinguishment or instead evacuate and contact emergency responders.

Employers should consider collision, crushing and caught-between hazards, unexpected movement caused by sensor or software failures, charging and battery hazards, maintenance and servicing risks, and how employees should respond when a robot malfunctions. The assessment should consider not only intended operation, but also reasonably foreseeable failures, misuse, interactions with pedestrians and other equipment, and circumstances in which employees may attempt to stop, move, reset, service, or otherwise interact with the robot.

The permit application process also requires a business to submit a plan detailing how a minimum of one trained human supervisor will be physically present on the premises at all times the covered robot is actively operating in customer- or public-facing areas.

Robot Roll-Out

Employers should not treat the adoption of autonomous robots solely as an IT or procurement decision. Robots using cameras, microphones, or similar sensors may also raise employee privacy and monitoring concerns and could develop data that could be problematic if not properly maintained or discarded. Employers should also determine how the robot will be stopped or isolated during an emergency or malfunction, who has authority to intervene, how safeguards will be tested and validated, and whether the assessment must be revisited when software, sensors, operating parameters, routes, payloads, workplace layouts, or other conditions change. Employers should also guard against automation bias. Employees and supervisors should not assume that sensors, collision-avoidance technology, or other automated safeguards will identify or prevent every hazardous condition. Autonomous technology should supplement, rather than replace, appropriate employee training, supervision, inspections, and safety judgment.

Employers considering autonomous robots should determine whether their locations and equipment are covered, incorporate permitting into deployment plans, conduct a workplace safety assessment, evaluate the privacy implications of onboard sensors, and assess potential employee displacement. Employers should also be mindful that any complaints involving a robot on the workplace premises are publicly available. The ordinance requires a business to maintain a public complaint log for each covered robot. The public complaint log must include the date of complaint, the complainant’s contact information (if the complainant consents to disclosure), and a description of the incident or activities giving rise to the complaint.

Enforcement

The county code compliance department is responsible for enforcing the ordinance. A violation is considered a public nuisance, subject to applicable civil, administrative, and criminal remedies and penalties under county law. A business found to be in violation is subject to administrative fines and abatement, and may also have its robot permit suspended or revoked.

Although the ordinance is currently limited to unincorporated San Mateo County, the County has described it as a “model ordinance.” Employers deploying AI-powered robotics elsewhere in California should therefore monitor whether similar requirements emerge in other jurisdictions.