Can your employer make you get a microchip implant? State laws compared

Microchip implants raise an obvious worry for workers: that a chip under the skin could become a condition of the job. A few states have answered it with laws that ban requiring an implant. This page compares the seven state laws we have read in full from the legislatures' own sites: Wisconsin (Wis. Stat. 146.25), Missouri (Mo. Rev. Stat. 285.035), North Dakota (N.D. Cent. Code 12.1-15-06), Nevada (NRS 200.870), Montana (MCA 39-2-1501 to 1503), Indiana (IC 22-5-8) and Washington (Chapter 25, Laws of 2026). Other states may have their own rules, so check where you work.

The short answer: in these seven states, an employer cannot make a worker get a microchip implant. Missouri's, Montana's, Indiana's and Washington's laws are written for employers and Nevada's names employers among the people it covers; Wisconsin's and North Dakota's apply to any person, which includes employers. Breaking the law can mean a fine of up to $10,000 a day in Wisconsin, a class A misdemeanor in Missouri and North Dakota, and a category C felony in Nevada. Indiana and Washington let the worker sue instead, and Washington allows punitive damages; Montana's part names no penalty. Washington goes furthest on consent: an employer may not even request an implant. Elsewhere a truly voluntary implant is not banned, but Nevada counts one as voluntary only when no incentive is offered, Montana requires written consent and makes the employer pay, and Indiana bans making one a condition of extra pay or benefits.

Side by side

Wisconsin

Section 146.25 says no person may require an individual to undergo the implanting of a microchip. A violator may be required to forfeit up to $10,000, and each day the violation continues is a separate offense. The statute history credits 2005 Wisconsin Act 482 (Wis. Stat. 146.25). The section does not define "microchip", and it sits in the public health chapter rather than the employment chapter, so it protects everyone, not only workers.

Missouri

Section 285.035, in Missouri's labor chapter, says no employer shall require an employee to have personal identification microchip technology implanted for any reason. That technology means a subcutaneous or surgically implanted microchip device or product that contains, or is designed to contain, a unique identification number and personal information that can be noninvasively retrieved or transmitted with an external scanning device. An employer that breaks the section is guilty of a class A misdemeanor (Mo. Rev. Stat. 285.035). The section was enacted in 2008 and took effect on 28 August 2008.

North Dakota

Section 12.1-15-06 of the North Dakota Century Code says a person may not require that an individual have a microchip containing a radio frequency identification device inserted into their body. A violation is a class A misdemeanor (N.D. Cent. Code 12.1-15-06).

Nevada

Section 200.870 of the Nevada Revised Statutes makes it unlawful for an employer, as a condition of employment, to require another person to undergo the implantation of a microchip or other permanent identification marker of any kind. The same ban covers state and local officers and employees, people licensed to sell insurance and people licensed in the bail business. A microchip here means a device implanted under the skin that can transmit personal information to another device by radio frequency. The definition leaves out devices that cannot transmit, hearing aids and hearing implants, and medical devices that only transmit what is needed to diagnose, monitor, treat or prevent a health condition (NRS 200.870).

A violation is a category C felony. Under the general penalty section that means a prison term of at least 1 year and at most 5 years, and the court may add a fine of up to $10,000 (NRS 193.130). The section was added to the Nevada Revised Statutes in 2019.

Nevada speaks to voluntary implants directly. A person may still choose an implant voluntarily, but the section defines "voluntarily" as without an incentive or other inducement. Our reading, not a court ruling: an employer in Nevada that offers a bonus, a perk or easier access in return for an implant risks taking the choice outside that safe harbor.

Montana

Montana has a whole part of its labor code on microchip implants. An employer may not require an employee to have a microchip implanted as a condition of employment, and the definitions count independent contractors as employees, so the ban reaches contractors too. A microchip means technology designed to be surgically implanted that carries a unique identification number and personal information readable with an external scanner (MCA 39-2-1501).

Unlike the other states, Montana spells out the rules for an implant an employer asks for (MCA 39-2-1502):

• the employee must give written consent;
• the employee may ask for removal at any time, and the chip must then be removed within 30 days;
• the employer pays the costs of implanting and removing the chip, and the medical costs of any injury the chip causes;
• the employer must tell the employee what data may be kept on the chip and how the employer will use it;
• when the job ends for any reason, the chip must be removed within 30 days and data transmission to the employer must stop. The employee may choose to keep the chip, and then pays its costs.

The section also says it does not stop an employer using other, noninvasive technology to track employees' movements. A separate section bars state agencies and local governments from requiring anyone to have a microchip implanted (MCA 39-2-1503). The part was enacted by Chapter 324 of the 2019 session laws. It names no penalty, and none of the three sections we read gives the worker an express right to sue.

Indiana

Indiana's chapter covers the widest range of devices. An employer may not require an employee or a job applicant to implant a device in their body, to receive an injection of a device, or to ingest, inhale or otherwise incorporate a device into their body. The ban applies whether the demand is a condition of the job, of a particular position, or of extra pay or other benefits (IC 22-5-8-2). A device includes any acoustic, optical, mechanical, electronic, medical or molecular device, so the chapter is not limited to ID chips. The employer definition covers the state and other government bodies as well as private businesses with one or more employees.

Indiana is also the only one of the seven with its own protection against retaliation: an employer may not discriminate against an employee in pay, benefits or other terms of employment because the employee refused. The one exception is a court order directing the person to take one of those actions. Instead of a criminal penalty, the chapter lets the employee or applicant bring a civil action; the court may award actual damages, court costs and reasonable attorney's fees and may order the employer to stop. The chapter says it does not limit rights under other state or federal law. It was added by P.L.20-2020, with the employer definition added by P.L.35-2021 (IC 22-5-8).

Washington

Washington is the newest of the seven. A law approved on 11 March 2026 and in effect from 11 June 2026 adds a new section to chapter 49.44 of the Revised Code of Washington. It says an employer may not request, require or coerce any employee to have a microchip implanted in the employee for any reason (Chapter 25, Laws of 2026). Because the ban covers requests too, it goes further than any of the other six: an employer in Washington should not ask at all, even with a free choice to refuse.

Employee includes a job applicant, and employer includes the state, state agencies, local governments and any business with one or more employees in the state. A microchip means a product, device or technology implanted beneath the skin that carries a unique identification number and personal information readable with an external scanner. Implanted medical devices that only transmit what is needed for diagnosis, monitoring, treatment or prevention of a health condition are excluded, and so is anything held on the skin by an adhesive strip or a bracelet.

There is no criminal penalty in the section. Instead an employee harmed by a violation can bring a civil action, and the court may award injunctive relief, actual damages, punitive damages, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. The section has no separate clause on retaliation against a worker who refuses.

What these laws do not say

• Voluntary implants: all seven texts ban requiring an implant, and Washington also bans requesting or coercing one, for any reason. The other six do not ban an employer simply offering one that a worker is free to refuse, though Indiana bans tying it to extra pay or benefits. Our reading, not a court ruling, is that pressure strong enough to amount to a requirement would still be caught. Nevada draws a line by treating an implant as voluntary only when there is no incentive or other inducement, and Montana sets conditions (written consent, employer pays, removal on request).
• Retaliation and lawsuits: only Indiana has its own clause barring discrimination against a worker who refuses. Indiana and Washington give an express right to sue. The other five have neither.
• Wearables and phones: the laws cover devices put in the body only, and Montana's says outright that it does not stop noninvasive tracking. Badges, wristbands, smartwatches and phone apps that track location are outside them, and other rules apply, see employee monitoring laws in the US.
• Data from a chip: only Montana deals with chip data, by requiring the employer to disclose what data the chip may hold and how it will be used, and to stop data transmission when the job ends. The others say nothing about it. Where a chip reads body data rather than an ID number, biometric laws may matter, see biometric privacy laws at work.

What this means in practice

• Employers: in these states, never make an implant a condition of hiring, keeping a job or getting access, and in Washington do not even ask. Where an offer is allowed, keep a non-implant option (a card or fob) that works just as well, and make sure nobody is worse off for choosing it.
• Workers: you can say no. Ask for the alternative in writing, and keep a record of any pressure.

For other limits on workplace tracking, see AI monitoring at work and social media password laws in the US.

This page is general information based on the statute texts published by the Wisconsin, Missouri, North Dakota, Nevada Montana, Indiana and Washington legislatures when checked on 3 November 2026, not legal advice. Check for later amendments before relying on it.