Blogs

Chat with us

California AB 692: What HR Must Know About Repayment Restriction

On October 13, 2025, a pen stroke set off a ripple many of us in HR and talent mobility had been watching with unease. As of January 1, 2026, California’s AB 692—simply named, but far-reaching—reshapes how employers can ask employees to repay costs after leaving a job. In my years of guiding organizations through regulatory changes, I have rarely seen a law that demands such careful review of not just contracts, but overall talent management strategy.

If you employ, relocate, or manage workers in California, this law deserves your attention. In this article, I’ll break down what AB 692 means, who it covers, what it leaves out, where it leaves gray areas, and where action is needed—especially for organizations managing mobility and complex HR arrangements. With my experience at EWS Limited, I understand how these changes can impact not just human resources, but your expansion and operations.

Why AB 692 matters for HR and talent mobility

AB 692 may look, at first sight, like a targeted fix for a narrow problem. But read closer and you’ll see how it affects employer mobility practices, repayment agreements, and even the structure of your compensation offers.

This law brings new limits on when and how a California employer can recover money or costs from employees following their separation from employment.

That includes, but is not limited to:

  • Repayment of relocation expenses
  • Payback clauses for training, licensure, or tuition
  • Reimbursement of signing bonuses or incentive payments
  • Fees related to early termination agreements

Given the central role of mobility and tailored incentive packages in hiring and retaining skilled employees, especially for startups, technology, and globally focused firms, AB 692 is a turning point. As international compliance grows more complex, laws like this force companies to revisit not just their legal terms, but their business practices, costing, and risk management.

What AB 692 prohibits: Main provisions

When I first read the text of AB 692, what stood out immediately was its specificity—and its boldness. The law covers all new contracts or contractual terms entered into, modified, or extended after January 1, 2026. Here’s the heart of the matter:

California employers can no longer require workers to repay certain costs or debts related to their work after their employment ends, unless a specific exclusion applies.

  • No forced repayment: Agreements cannot make an employee or former employee liable to pay a debt, pay a fee, or pay a penalty because employment ended.
  • No post-termination debt collection: You cannot trigger or revive a debt collection process just because someone leaves or is let go.
  • No fees or penalties upon termination: Imposing special costs on a departing worker is off the table.

Anyone violating these rules faces steep penalties: the greater of actual damages or $5,000 per affected worker, plus the possibility of court injunctions, attorney’s fees, and costs.

AB 692 does not apply retroactively to contracts before January 1, 2026, unless they are amended or renegotiated after that date. That said, I always tell clients: reviewing legacy agreements in light of new laws is simply wise risk management.

New worker protections and employer obligations have become a clear message from California regulators—review those contracts, hiring plans, and HR systems now.

Who is affected by AB 692?

The law targets any California employer and applies to anyone hired in California—or whose work or contract is governed by California law.

The practical impact depends on:

  • Who you hire (local, national, or global talent)
  • Your use of mobility or incentive payments in offers
  • How often you rely on repayment or ‘clawback’ clauses to reduce business risk
  • Which benefits and compensation structures are managed through third parties or service providers

Be aware: service providers (such as payroll or contract management firms) who facilitate prohibited repayments for their employer clients also face the full penalty structure of AB 692. I always encourage organizations to review not just what they do, but what their vendors support on their behalf. EWS Limited regularly assists organizations in reviewing third-party contracts and international workforce processes to avoid gaps in compliance.

Team of HR professionals reviewing repayment policies How penalties are enforced

One thing I’ve heard again and again is, “Will they really pursue this?” The answer is simple: With these financial incentives and the strong policy push in favor of worker rights, enforcement is designed to be real and meaningful.

AB 692’s penalty structure:

  • Actual damages or $5,000 per worker, whichever is higher
  • Additional legal remedies (injunctions, plus attorney’s fees and costs)
  • Available against both employers and service providers who engage in violation

Violating AB 692 is a costly mistake—with statutory damages designed to encourage compliance, not just remedy harm.

What exclusions are built into AB 692?

Not everything is swept up by the law. As I read through the exclusions, a picture emerged: California lawmakers wanted to block “unfair” repayment but allow arrangements often seen as investments in workers, like education that benefits future opportunities.

AB 692 excludes the following:

  • Federal, state, or local government student loan repayment or forgiveness programs: Support for student loans using standard government programs is untouched.
  • Tuition and expenses for obtaining a transferable credential, degree, or license: If the educational benefit is not employer-specific and is portable (like a college degree or certain certifications), payback arrangements are allowed.
  • Registered apprenticeship programs: These state-sanctioned training pathways remain covered by separate, existing federal and state rules.

The exclusions, in California’s own summary of new laws, reinforce California’s larger push for equity and worker support (recent pay equity laws are another signpost).

What’s not broadly excluded? Relocation and mobility repayments

This is where things get thorny. Most traditional relocation or mobility repayments—like those requiring workers to pay back moving expenses if they leave within 12 months—are not blanketed by an exclusion. Employee experience teams, HR leaders, and global mobility managers need to go deeper.

However, two legal carve-outs in AB 692 may apply, if certain strict criteria are met.

The two key carve-outs for mobility and incentives

Based on my experience, these are the “lifelines” managers and counsel will reach for if they want to keep some repayment options alive, especially for hiring or relocating high-value talent.

1. Discretionary, up-front monetary payments (e.g., signing or retention bonuses)

AB 692 lets you require repayment on up-front, discretionary monetary payments if (and only if) you satisfy all five of these:

  1. Separate written agreement: The amount and terms must be stated in an agreement separate from any employment contract.
  2. Right to consult: The employee must have the right to consult an attorney of their choice. Employers must provide a notice to this effect.
  3. No interest and proration: Any required repayment must be without interest and must be prorated, taking into account the length of employment versus the repayment period.
  4. Deferral option: If the employee asks for a deferral based on financial hardship, you must allow the repayment to be deferred without interest.
  5. Limitation on separation reason: If the employee is terminated without cause or because of a “substantial change” in work circumstances, you cannot enforce repayment.

Miss just one of these? Your repayment clause is void under AB 692.

2. Contracts involving residential real estate transactions

If your repayment condition is tied to a residential real estate purchase, sale, or lease transaction—and you meet state regulatory carve-outs—repayment may still be allowed. However, the law is unclear about exactly which property-related transactions are covered, leading to concern among mobility professionals.

I’ve seen companies stumble at this point: if your mobility program includes buying or selling homes as part of relocation, you need to review your contracts closely with legal counsel.

Cardboard boxes labeled with employee names in workplace How each company will feel the impact

In my work with US employer-of-record solutions, I’ve observed that no two firms are affected in the same way by new laws. Your exposure to AB 692 will depend on:

  • Whether you rely heavily on relocation benefit repayment (“clawbacks”)
  • How your signing or retention incentives are structured
  • If you use outside vendors for payroll or global mobility
  • Your blend of in-state and remote or international talent

For most, the law is a signal: it’s time to update contracts, rethink benefit designs, and train your managers in the new legal reality.

What HR and mobility leaders should do now

With AB 692 just months away, HR professionals and partner managers should take action. I always suggest a blend of legal, operational, and communication steps.

  • Map out current repayment and “clawback” arrangements—review every instance, not just standard templates
  • Re-examine any hiring or retention bonuses for the five-point test on discretionary payments
  • Scrutinize relocation and mobility agreements for exposure
  • Engage internal and external counsel—document advice received
  • Educate business partners and affected staff about the coming changes
  • Review third-party vendor agreements to ensure compliance

If your company manages international teams or is expanding into California, it’s time to check out resources on scalable global HR strategies and current mobility compliance standards.

Proactive review beats crisis management—every time.

WERC’s advocacy, feedback, and open issues

As someone who follows talent mobility policy, I’ve seen how even well-meaning laws create ripple effects. The Worldwide ERC (WERC) has already engaged with California’s lawmakers, urging changes and clarifications to limit disruption for employers managing transfers, relocations, and multidisciplinary teams.

WERC’s main points to lawmakers have included:

  • Expanding exclusions to current employees, not just new hires
  • Refining real estate-related text to clearly cover buy/sell transactions, not just leases
  • Broadening carve-outs to cover moving services, temporary housing, and related logistics—not just tuition or loans

Governor Newsom’s signing message explicitly asked the Legislature to return to this law in 2026 and consider improvements—especially regarding collective bargaining exclusions and clarifying the effect on talent mobility arrangements.

Lawmakers know fixes are needed, and WERC is pressing the case for changes that support both worker rights and functional global mobility.

In fact, several recent pay equity enforcement laws passed as part of a larger surge toward stronger worker protections and transparency, so continued engagement and feedback will be key.

If you are an employer or manager affected by AB 692, consider contacting WERC if you want to share your experiences, concerns, or ideas for advocacy. They are keeping up the pressure for improvements—and offer practical updates as the law evolves.

Legal team walking towards California State Capitol How this shapes your HR, mobility, and compliance strategy

Reflecting on my years with EWS Limited, I know HR and mobility leaders can’t afford to treat sweeping regulation like AB 692 as mere legal trivia.

  • Are you managing offers, bonuses, or relocation assistance for California employees?
  • Are your contracts up to date for 2026 and beyond?
  • Have you discussed practical next steps with counsel and your HR operations teams?

The new law demands not just compliance, but a fresh look at how you support talent, build incentives, and manage cost. Organizations with good advice, updated documentation, and flexible benefit design will be best positioned to thrive.

For teams focused on inclusive recruitment or international hiring, understanding California’s policy trends is just as relevant. That’s especially true as states and countries observe, and perhaps follow, California’s lead.

Conclusion: Taking action in the new regulatory landscape

AB 692 challenges companies to rethink how they structure incentives, reward loyalty, and recover investments without crossing regulatory lines.

I believe the best move is to respond now. Review your agreements, talk with your internal and external experts, and ensure compliance before January 2026. The cost of waiting—or being caught off-guard—is simply too high.

As global HR evolves, EWS Limited remains committed to helping clients connect the dots—between regulatory change, talent strategy, and business growth. If your team is looking for support on employer of record solutions, mobility compliance, or scalable international hiring frameworks, I invite you to reach out and learn how EWS Limited can help you move forward with confidence in a changing world.

Frequently asked questions

What is California AB 692 about?

California AB 692 prohibits employers from requiring employees or former employees to pay back certain debts, fees, or penalties simply because their employment has ended. The law restricts repayment requirements in employment agreements made or changed after January 1, 2026, unless an explicit legal exclusion applies.

Who does AB 692 repayment restriction affect?

The law applies to any California employer entering into new contracts or modifying existing agreements after January 1, 2026. It covers all workers and contracts under California law. Service providers who facilitate prohibited repayments can also face penalties.

How does AB 692 impact employee loans?

AB 692 does not block participation in government-backed student loan repayment or forgiveness programs. However, most other types of loan repayment agreements linked solely to employment termination are restricted unless they fall under a legal exclusion, such as for portable educational credentials or registered apprenticeship programs.

When does AB 692 go into effect?

AB 692 takes effect January 1, 2026, and covers all contracts or contractual terms entered into, modified, or extended on or after that date. Existing agreements made before that date are unaffected unless renegotiated.

Are there penalties for violating AB 692?

Yes. Employers and service providers who violate AB 692 face penalties of at least $5,000 per affected worker, or actual damages if higher, along with possible injunctions and recovery of attorney’s fees and costs. The law is designed to drive compliance through strong financial consequences.

  • share on Facebook
  • share on Twitter
  • share on LinkedIn

Related Blogs