Artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly moving beyond simple automation tools. One of the newest developments is the emergence of “digital twins,” AI-powered replicas designed to capture an employee’s knowledge, work patterns, communication style, and decision-making processes.

For employers, the potential benefits are obvious. Digital twins promise to preserve institutional knowledge, improve succession planning, and increase productivity. But they also raise a host of legal and workplace relations issues that employers should consider before implementation.

What data is being used?

The first question is often the most important: what information is being used to create the digital twin?

Many systems are built using emails, instant messages, meeting transcripts, documents, performance data, and other workplace communications. While employers may view this information as corporate data, employees may see things differently when that data is used to create a digital version of themselves.

Employers should carefully consider their privacy obligations, ensure that the collection and use of information are proportionate to a legitimate business purpose, and be transparent about how employee data will be used.

Who owns a digital twin?

Perhaps the most interesting legal question is ownership.

Employers generally own the work product created by employees in the course of employment. A digital twin, however, may represent more than a work product. It may capture an individual’s communication style, judgment, expertise, and professional identity.

At what point does a digital twin become something more than an employer-owned repository of knowledge? Could a former employee argue that the continued use of their digital twin amounts to the exploitation of their professional persona?

The law has not yet answered these questions, but employers would be wise to address ownership, permitted use, and post-employment rights in employment agreements and AI governance policies before disputes arise.

What happens when the employee leaves?

The issue becomes even more complicated when employment ends.

Can the employer continue to use the digital twin after the employee resigns or retires? Can it continue to be trained using the employee’s historical data? Can it interact with clients or colleagues as a proxy for the former employee?

Employers should consider these questions before deploying the technology. Clear contractual language and transparent policies will be critical in managing expectations and reducing risk.

Could digital twins create constructive dismissal risk?

The way a digital twin is deployed may also have implications for the employment relationship itself.

Consider a situation where a significant portion of an employee’s responsibilities are transferred to a digital twin. If the employee’s role, status, or core duties are substantially diminished, the employee may argue that the employer has fundamentally changed the terms of employment.

While every case will depend on its facts, employers should carefully assess how digital twins affect existing roles and responsibilities before implementation.

Human rights risks remain human risks

Digital twins learn from historical workplace data. The problem is that historical data may reflect historical biases.

If a digital twin influences hiring, promotion, discipline, scheduling, or other employment decisions, employers must be alert to the risk of discriminatory outcomes. The fact that a recommendation comes from an AI system will not insulate an employer from liability.

Human rights obligations remain the same. If the outcome is discriminatory, the employer remains responsible.

Human oversight, regular auditing, and appropriate safeguards should be built into any deployment strategy.

Who is responsible for bad advice?

A final question is accountability.

If a digital twin provides inaccurate information, makes a flawed recommendation, or contributes to a poor employment decision, who is responsible? The employee whose data trained the system? The software vendor? The employer?

From an employment law perspective, the answer is likely straightforward: employers remain responsible for decisions made in their workplaces. Digital twins may assist in decision-making, but they do not replace an employer’s obligation to exercise reasonable judgment.

Special considerations in unionized workplaces

For unionized employers, digital twins may raise additional issues.

Depending on the collective agreement, implementation could be viewed as a form of technological change or workplace automation. This may trigger notification, consultation, or bargaining obligations. Unions may also raise concerns regarding surveillance, job displacement, workload, and the use of employee data.

Before implementing digital twin technology, employers should review their collective agreements carefully and consider whether engagement with the union is required.

Looking ahead

Digital twins technology is still in its infancy, but they raise questions that go to the heart of the employment relationship: who owns workplace knowledge, how employee data can be used, and where responsibility lies when AI systems influence workplace decisions. As adoption increases, employers can expect courts, arbitrators, privacy regulators, and human rights tribunals to grapple with these issues in new and often unpredictable ways.

What seems novel today may become commonplace tomorrow. This is only the beginning of the conversation. We will continue to monitor developments in this rapidly evolving area and provide updates as the legal landscape takes shape.

In the meantime, employers that begin thinking about these issues now will be better positioned to realize the benefits while managing the legal risks.

For further information about digital twins, AI in the workplace, or other employment law issues, please contact a member of the Employment, Labour & Equalities Group.