Privacy and wearable recording devices

Smart glasses and other wearable recording devices are moving into California workplaces. This year the Legislature passed Senate Bill (SB) 1130 to regulate them, and Governor Newsom vetoed it on September 30, 2026. The practical question for employers remains: How should a business respond when employees, customers, vendors or visitors wear devices that record audio or video on its premises?

Wearable recording devices add new layers to privacy, operational and compliance concerns. Until California enacts a wearable-specific law, existing privacy statutes and court decisions set the rules, and businesses should continue to follow them.

What SB 1130 proposed

SB 1130 would have expanded the California Invasion of Privacy Act to address wearable recording devices such as smart glasses and body-worn technology. As passed by the Legislature, the bill would have prohibited a person from using a wearable recording device to capture sound or video of another person in an area within a place of business where that person has a reasonable expectation of privacy, unless that person explicitly consents.

The bill would also have made it a separate violation to disable a light or other indicator showing that the device is recording. Beginning January 1, 2028, the bill also required wearable recording devices sold in California to carry a recording indicator prominent enough to alert a reasonable person nearby. The bill exempted, among others, peace officer body-worn cameras, employer-provided communication devices used in normal work duties (with a customer notice requirement if the employer intentionally records a customer), hearing aids and assistive technology.

The bill would have been enforced by prosecutors and public enforcers. As reported, a violation of the new section would have been a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of up to $1,500, up to one year in county jail, or both. A knowing violation of the manufacturer requirements would have carried a civil penalty of up to $2,500 per violation. The bill reportedly created no private right of action.

The veto

The Governor vetoed SB 1130 on September 30, 2026. In the veto message, the Governor stated that the bill defines several terms too broadly or imprecisely, noted that its definition of a wearable recording device could reach certain smartwatches and other worn devices, and observed that existing California law already prohibits recording people where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy. He also acknowledged that reports of invasive conduct using wearable technology demand a legislative response. An override requires a two-thirds vote in each house, which the Legislature rarely attempts, so any successor proposal would likely arrive as a new bill in the next legislative session.

The veto leaves in place existing law governing recording in the workplace... For instance, Penal Code section 632 prohibits intentionally recording a confidential communication without the consent of all parties. Penal Code section 637.2 allows an injured person to sue for the greater of $5,000 per violation or three times actual damages. Also, Labor Code section 435 separately prohibits an employer from recording employees by audio or video in a restroom, locker room or room designated for changing clothes without a court order.

Why this matters for businesses

For employers, the exposure extends beyond just recorded conversations. A workplace may include reception areas, retail floors, open offices, conference rooms, HR offices, break rooms, healthcare settings, customer service counters and private offices where sensitive information is regularly discussed, displayed and processed. A wearable recording device can capture not only what is said, but also what can be seen in the surrounding environment.

That distinction matters under California privacy law. California courts have repeatedly made clear that privacy is not an all-or-nothing concept. In Sanders v. American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., 20 Cal. 4th 907 (1999), an undercover reporter secretly videotaped conversations at a telepsychic call center. The California Supreme Court held that employees in a nonpublic workplace may still have a limited but legitimate expectation that their interactions will not be secretly videotaped, even if coworkers could have overheard them.

In Hernandez v. Hillsides, Inc., 47 Cal. 4th 272 (2009), the Court explained that workplace privacy depends on context, including the nature of the intrusion, the setting and the employee’s reasonable expectations under the circumstances. The Court ruled for the employer in Hernandez because the video surveillance was limited in scope and tied to a legitimate purpose, a point that supports documented, narrowly tailored recording policies. Because SB 1130 did not become law, these common law privacy decisions continue to supply the governing framework for wearable device disputes in the workplace.

Public areas vs. sensitive areas

For businesses, that framework is more useful than a simple “public versus private” label. A retail floor, lobby or reception area is generally more open than an HR office, manager’s office, conference room, finance office or other restricted-access area. But even in more public-facing areas, recording can create privacy risk when it captures sensitive information visible or audible in the background.

Consider a smart-glasses recording made during an ordinary customer interaction. The device may capture a driver’s license on a desk, payment information on a monitor, another customer’s account discussion nearby, employee records, confidential business materials or proprietary information visible during the interaction. In that situation, the concern extends beyond the conversation itself. The surrounding data environment may be the greater problem.

Why Wearables Are Different

Wearable devices present a different challenge than an ordinary phone camera. They may be less noticeable, operate hands-free and make it harder for others to tell whether recording is taking place. That uncertainty alone can create tension in settings where sensitive information is routinely handled.

California law does not currently require a visible recording indicator on smart glasses, because the indicator mandate in SB 1130 did not survive the veto. Staff and visitors therefore cannot rely on a light to show whether a device is recording, which strengthens the case for clear written policies and designated no-wearable areas.

The issue can arise on both the employee side and the visitor side. For employees, wearable devices create concerns in HR settings, management meetings, healthcare environments, finance functions, confidential project discussions and other spaces where personnel, compensation, customer or strategic information is discussed. Even where no improper recording occurs, uncertainty over whether an employee is recording can create immediate operational concerns.

For customers, clients, vendors and visitors, the concern takes a different form. A wearer may believe the device documents only the meeting, transaction or service interaction at hand. But the device may also capture another person’s information, documents left in view or screens displaying private data. Depending on the location and circumstances, that may raise privacy concerns independent of the wearer’s original intent.

A courtroom example: The meta glasses incident

On February 18, 2026, Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Carolyn Kuhl reportedly ordered members of Mark Zuckerberg’s team to remove Meta AI glasses they wore into her courtroom at a social media addiction trial. She warned that she would hold them in contempt if they had recorded anything and did not delete it, highlighting how seriously decision-makers may react when others cannot easily determine whether recording is occurring.

Practical steps businesses can take now

Businesses can reduce exposure under existing California law with the following steps.

• Update policies. Adopt employee and visitor policies that address wearable recording devices by name, including smart glasses and AI-enabled earbuds or pendants.
• Post notices and set boundaries. Designate no-recording areas and post notices at their entrances.
• Train staff. Prepare managers and front-line employees to apply the policy consistently and to be observant regarding individuals who are or may be using such devices in restricted areas.
• Add physical safeguards. Use privacy screen filters and keep documents out of view at service counters.
• Create a response protocol. Set out what staff should do when they suspect someone is recording.
• Review industry-specific obligations on a schedule, such as patient privacy requirements under HIPAA (the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act) in healthcare settings and safeguards rules for financial information under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act), and update such policies accordingly
• Watch the 2027 legislative session for a successor to SB 1130.

Although SB 1130 failed this year, the technology continues to evolve and move into everyday business settings. Written policies, trained staff, and consistent enforcement address the risk under the laws California already has.