Made to clock in on your personal phone in Puerto Rico?

Security guards asked the question, and there is an official answer

This is not theory. Employees of a security company in Puerto Rico started calling the area offices of the Bureau of Labor Standards with the same problem: their employer was requiring them to **install an attendance app on their personal cell phone** (electronic time clock) and to **keep geolocation switched on** so the company could verify their location during the workday. With no compensation, no stipend and no reimbursement for use of the device, for data consumption or for any other expense.

The Bureau escalated the question and the **Office of the Labor Ombudsman** answered in writing on **April 17, 2026**, in **Consultation No. 15,843**, signed by Labor Ombudsman Reynaldo Santiago González. That office is the one the Department of Labor and Human Resources has delegated to set public policy on how the protective labor legislation it administers is interpreted.

If the same thing is happening to you (and it happens to a great many people in security, maintenance, delivery and home service) this guide summarizes what the Ombudsman answered. It is from this year and it is published nowhere else in plain language.

The short answer, and it is neither a yes nor a no

The opinion's conclusion is written in a single sentence, and it is worth having whole before arguing with anyone: **"the use of a worker's personal cell phone to record attendance is not in itself an absolutely prohibited practice, but neither is it free of obligations and conditions. These claims must be evaluated case by case."**

That is: not flatly prohibited, but not an employer's right either. What makes the opinion useful is everything that follows, because that is where the Ombudsman says what is allowed and what is not.

The Ombudsman acknowledges up front that Puerto Rico **has no labor statute today specifically regulating** the use of mobile apps with geolocation tracking as an employer tool for recording working time. But he adds the part that matters: **that absence of specific legislation does not mean the employer can demand whatever it wants**.

What the employer may NOT do, per the opinion

These are the lines from the opinion most useful if this is being demanded of you. They run close to verbatim:

Note the second point, because it is counterintuitive and decides many cases: **paying a stipend does not buy tracking**. The Ombudsman says so expressly, the employer covering your data is one thing, and having a right to track you permanently because of it is something else entirely.

And there is one Puerto Rico-specific detail the Ombudsman pauses on that nobody else mentions: **on the island many people do not have the phone in their own name**, whether because it was bought when the person was a minor or because it belongs to a family plan. For that reason, the opinion says, it is very important that the employer have **the express consent of the device's owner** when the employer does not provide the phone.

• **It may not ask or compel you, as a condition of employment**, to provide "unlimited access with geolocation tracking of a personal phone without express, informed consent," especially where it is unrelated to specific purposes of your job.
• **Paying you a data stipend does not grant a right to track you.** The opinion is explicit: paying a stipend to cover data expenses **does not justify** the employer having a right to unlimited use of the geolocator, especially **outside working hours**, much less having or requesting access to the camera, images or emails, among other private information stored on your phone.
• **It cannot be the only alternative.** The Ombudsman asks the obvious: what happens if the phone breaks, or if your phone model does not support the app? Must you buy a device to run the employer's app? And what happens in a hurricane or an earthquake, when telecommunications go down, as happened with María and the southern earthquakes?
• **Requiring permanent geolocation tracking on a personal device just to record attendance** is, in the opinion's words, **disproportionate**. If a less invasive alternative exists, **that is the one that must be chosen**.

If you refuse, that alone is not misconduct or grounds for discipline

This is the paragraph to keep, and it runs almost word for word: **if a worker refuses to use their personal phone to record attendance, that action by itself does not constitute a breach of current rules and no disciplinary measure is warranted for the refusal**.

The reason the Ombudsman gives goes to substance, not form: **the responsibility to implement a valid attendance recording system belongs to the employer**, which must have available an alternative method complying with Act No. 379 and its regulation in force. Recording hours is the employer's obligation, not yours, and it cannot be shifted onto your device and your wallet.

That is where this links to the rest of local law. The Department of Labor's **Regulation No. 9017**, of April 4, 2018, administering Act 379, already requires the employer to keep a **daily attendance sheet or record** with the start time, the time the workday ends, and the assigned meal period, specifically noting when it begins and ends. How the employer obtains that record is its problem: the obligation exists with or without an app.

What it rests on: privacy in Puerto Rico protects more than federal law

The Ombudsman does not invent the protection: he draws it from the Puerto Rico Constitution and the Penal Code.

**Section 8 of Article II of the Constitution** says **"every person has the right to protection of law against abusive attacks on their honor, reputation and private or family life."** And **Section 7** recognizes as a fundamental right the right to life, liberty and the enjoyment of property.

Here is the point that makes local protection distinctive, and the Ombudsman quotes it from the Statement of Motives of **Act No. 39 of January 24, 2012**, the Privacy Policy Notification Act: that guarantee **"includes the right of every person to have control over all of their personal information,"** has **"a scope of protection broader than that provided by the Constitution of the United States,"** and **provides protection against the State as well as against private persons**.

Read that slowly: **against private persons**. Puerto Rico's constitutional privacy guarantee operates against a private employer, not only against the government. It is a real difference from federal law and it is the foundation of the whole opinion.

The opinion also adds the **Puerto Rico Penal Code**, whose Second Section on Crimes Against Privacy criminalizes, among others, **illegal collection of personal information** (Article 167) and **illegal recording of images** (Article 168), punishing anyone who without legal justification or legitimate investigative purpose uses electronic or digital video equipment for secret surveillance in private places **or in any other place where a reasonable expectation of privacy is recognized**, with a fine of up to $10,000 where the convicted party is a legal entity. And it mentions **Act No. 239**, which requires notifying a privacy policy in a clear, concise, conspicuous and unambiguous manner, administered by the Department of Consumer Affairs.

What to ask the employer for, and what to do if it is not given

The Ombudsman closes with a recommendation addressed to employers already using or considering attendance apps. That list is exactly what you can request in writing, because it is what the agency itself says should exist. The opinion recommends **a formal written policy** explaining in detail:

And it adds, in the same recommendation, that the policy should **provide alternative means** for employees to record attendance.

With that list in hand, ask for the policy in writing and keep a copy of the answer. If it does not exist, you now know what is missing and why. And note the distinction the opinion draws: **if the employer provides the phone, tablet or computer**, it may condition use of that equipment on installing a tracking system, "since it has an interest in the property provided to a worker." The analysis changes entirely depending on whose device it is.

If the matter is not resolved, the route is the **Bureau of Labor Standards** of the Department of Labor, the agency that handles these claims, with six offices, Central, Arecibo, Mayagüez, Ponce, Caguas and Humacao. Its claims arise three ways: direct worker complaint, inspection, or audit. One thing worth knowing: the consultation itself certifies that as of April 17, 2026 the Bureau had **no complaints or active cases** on this situation, only requests for guidance. Nobody had filed.

• **Employees' rights** under that policy.
• **The use and handling of location data.**
• **The guarantees of information security and data privacy.**
• **Who will have access** to the information collected.
• **What would happen in a security breach** and the steps to remedy it.
• **Express informed consent.**