GMS Publishes Guidance for Employers on California's AB 692 Compliance Requirements

New resource helps HR and mobility teams bring relocation and repayment agreements into line with the law now in effect

SCOTTSDALE, AZ, UNITED STATES, August 19, 2026 /EINPresswire.com/ -- Global Mobility Solutions (GMS), a national provider of corporate relocation and workforce mobility services, today published new guidance to help employers evaluate their relocation, sign-on bonus, and training repayment agreements against California's Assembly Bill 692 (AB 692), a law restricting so-called "stay or pay" provisions in employment contracts that took effect January 1, 2026.

AB 692, authored by Assemblymember Ash Kalra, prohibits employers from including contract terms that require a worker to repay a debt to an employer, training provider, or debt collector if their employment ends, or that impose penalties, fees, or costs tied to separation. The law applies to contracts entered into on or after January 1, 2026, and is not retroactive, though it covers sign-on bonuses, tuition reimbursement, relocation advances, and other front-loaded benefits with repayment terms. Any agreement signed since that date containing prohibited language is void and exposes employers to liability, including statutory damages and attorneys' fees.

For companies managing corporate relocation and mobility programs, the law has raised ongoing and, in many cases, unresolved questions about how relocation advances, lump sum payments, and repayment clauses tied to early departure should be structured for California-based employees. Many employers built their relocation policy language years before AB 692 existed, and those older templates often include exactly the kind of clawback and repayment terms the new law now voids. Because relocation packages are frequently negotiated case by case, inconsistent language across offer letters and side agreements has become a common compliance gap, one that many HR teams have not fully audited even months after the law took effect.

Complicating matters further, many multi-state employers have historically relied on a single national template for relocation agreements, assuming state-level variation could be handled through minor addenda. AB 692 undermines that assumption for California specifically, since the statute's language is broad enough to capture not just formal relocation contracts but also side letters, bonus agreements, and informal repayment understandings tied to relocation benefits. Employers who have not revisited their templates since the law took effect may not realize how much of their standard documentation now falls into a gray area.

"We're hearing from clients that this caught a lot of relocation programs off guard," said Kelly Rabbitts, Chief Revenue Officer at Global Mobility Solutions. "That's exactly why we put this guidance together, to give teams a clear starting point for reviewing their agreements."

GMS's guidance walks through the categories of contract terms affected under AB 692, the narrow exceptions that remain (including certain apprenticeship and government loan forgiveness programs), and the practical steps mobility and HR teams should take to bring their program into compliance. This includes auditing offer letters, relocation agreements, and bonus repayment clauses signed since January 1, removing or rewriting prohibited terms, and updating standard templates going forward so future agreements don't inherit the same risk. The guidance also addresses how companies with employees across multiple states should think about California-specific carve-outs within otherwise standardized relocation documentation, since a single national template no longer works cleanly for California-based hires.

Beyond the immediate compliance question, GMS notes that AB 692 reflects a broader legislative trend toward limiting employer leverage over departing workers, one that other states have shown early interest in mirroring. Employers with relocation programs spanning multiple jurisdictions may want to treat this review as a template for ongoing monitoring rather than a one-time fix, since similar restrictions could surface elsewhere in the coming years.

Violations of AB 692 render the offending contract term void and create a private right of action, with statutory damages of the greater of actual damages or $5,000 per affected worker, plus attorneys' fees. For companies with a meaningful California workforce, or those regularly relocating employees into the state, the cumulative exposure across even a small number of noncompliant agreements can add up quickly.

Kelly Rabbitts
Global Mobility Solution
+1 800-249-8662
email us here
Visit us on social media:
LinkedIn
Facebook
X