51 verifiable claims were checked across the federal baseline (no private-employer GPS statute; ECPA/Wiretap Act at 18 USC §2511; FLSA recordkeeping at 29 CFR §516.2; United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012)), California Penal Code §637.7 and CCPA/CPRA precise-geolocation definitions at Civil Code §1798.140, the four dedicated electronic-monitoring notice statutes (Connecticut §31-48d, Delaware 19 Del. C. §705, New York Civil Rights Law §52-c*2, Maine 26 M.R.S.A. §620-A / L.D. 61), and criminal tracking statutes in Illinois (720 ILCS 5/21-2.5), Texas (Penal Code §16.06), and Florida (§934.425).
47 claims are ✓ Verified, 4 are ⚠ Partial, 0 are ✗ Issue, 0 are 🕐 Outdated, and 0 are ⓘ Unverifiable. Partial findings flag (i) Connecticut trial-level treatment of off-site vehicle GPS as outside §31-48d’s premises definition (not an appellate holding restated as black-letter statute text), (ii) the exact mid-summer 2026 effective calendar day for Maine L.D. 61 (90 days after adjournment; commonly cited mid-July 2026), (iii) Florida’s 2024–2025 amendment sequence described at high level rather than bill-by-bill in body prose, and (iv) the operational claim that a geofence inside 1,850 feet meets CCPA “precise geolocation” — the radius definition is verified; whether any particular product configuration is “used or intended to be used” to locate within that circle is fact-specific.
Source spread: California Legislature (leginfo) for §637.7 and §1798.140; Justia and official code mirrors for Connecticut; Delaware Code Online for §705; NY Senate Open Legislation for CVR §52-c*2; Maine Legislature chaptered law PDF for L.D. 61; Illinois General Assembly for 720 ILCS 5/21-2.5; Texas statutes capitol for §16.06; Florida Online Sunshine for §934.425; Cornell LII for federal USC/CFR and Jones.
Coverage: federal floor + 50 states + DC in the summary table + deep dives on CA, CT, DE, NY, ME, IL, TX, FL + operational GPS time-clock guidance + biometric cross-ref only to sibling research.