Newsom vetoes California's smart-glasses recording-light mandate over how the bill defined a wearable
California Gov. Gavin Newsom vetoed a bill that would have required recording lights on smart glasses and other wearables from 2028. His letter said the bill's definition of a wearable was too broad, so any second attempt would have to say which devices count.
The Product Desk
What happened
- SB 1130 would also have made secretly recording people with a wearable in private areas of a business a misdemeanor, with fines up to $1,500 or prison.
- Makers selling wearables without a recording indicator, or tech built to mask one, would have faced fines of up to $2,500 per violation.
- Newsom's letter also noted that California already bars recording people without consent in spaces generally considered private.
- Meta, whose Ray-Ban smart glasses launched in 2021, sold more than 7 million of the AI-powered glasses last year.
Why it matters
- Who has to decide decision With the 2028 deadline gone, whether a recording light can be switched off or covered remains each maker's design choice, with no California fine attached.
- What it sets up precedent Other legislatures that copy SB 1130's device definition now face a governor's written reading that it reaches smartwatches, so naming camera glasses outright becomes the safer draft.
- Who's exposed exposure People in changing rooms and doctor's offices keep existing consent law but get no state-required signal on the device, so in the moment they still rely on the wearer's word.
Next story · Product · 2d ago
Alibaba's Qwen Glasses N1 lead Ray-Ban Meta on paper at no lower priceConfirmed4 publishers
Aniessa Navarro was getting a wax when she realized her technician was wearing smart glasses, according to a TikTok that Consumer Reports cited in a letter to lawmakers [16]. The technician told her the glasses weren't on. Navarro said the experience was still unnerving [16].
The industry's version is that the problem is mostly handled. Many wearables already show an indicator while recording, Engadget noted [18]. "We're still in the early days of building this technology and we're committed to continuing prioritizing privacy as we build," a Meta spokesperson said [14]. Robert Boykin, executive director of TechNet, whose members include executives from Meta, Google and Amazon, said: "California already has extensive laws governing unlawful recording, and as currently written, SB 1130 is not the right approach to addressing these concerns" [11].
What users report is different. Consumer Reports also cited a woman who said she was secretly filmed with smart glasses at a gym and harassed online after the video was uploaded to social media [17]. Justin Brookman, the group's director of technology policy, said it is harder to tell when someone is recording with a wearable than with a phone or camera [15].
Newsom put his objection in product terms. "For example, the bill's definition of 'wearable recording device' could include certain smartwatches or other worn devices widely used in public spaces and capable of recording which could lead to significant confusion and unintended consequences," he wrote [9]. The watch example is current. Apple announced last month that its latest Apple Watch software will let wearers replay a transcript of the past 15 seconds and recap the day's conversations [19]. AI-powered pendants have launched too, to mixed reactions [20].
The letter's two objections lead to different redrafts. A definition can be narrowed, for instance to glasses with cameras. The point about existing law concerns the act of recording [3]. It does not address what a device has to show while it records, and AP reported the bill would have been the first of its kind in the nation [13]. I'd expect a second version to lead with the hardware rule and a tighter device list. None of the reports says whether Sen. Eloise Gomez Reyes, who wrote the bill, plans to bring one back [7]. At the end of the session she said, "The stories are enough to cause alarm, and we need to do something as soon as we can" [12].
For a wearables team planning hardware before any redraft, two axes sort the exposure. One is whether a stranger would recognize the device as a recorder. The other is whether the wearer can switch off or cover its indicator. Camera glasses with an indicator the wearer cannot defeat already meet what SB 1130 asked of hardware [4]. Glasses whose light can be turned off or covered are the design the bill was written against. Watches and pendants with a visible indicator sit in the gap Newsom named, and their status depends on where the next definition draws the line [9]. A device nobody recognizes, with no indicator at all, is exposed under any definition written around recording capability.
What to watch
- Whether Sen. Eloise Gomez Reyes reintroduces SB 1130 with a device definition limited to head-worn cameras.
- Whether Meta or other glasses makers make their recording indicators impossible to disable or cover without a mandate.
- Whether Apple's always-listening Apple Watch transcript feature ships as announced, putting a recording-capable watch at the center of the definition debate.
Clarity's read
What the record supports and how the coverage leans. The claims behind it follow.
Reality
- Evidence82
- Adoption55
- Hype gap+12
- Incentives65
- Confidence80
Perspective Coverage
4 publishers- Builder
- Builder 38%
- Operator
- Operator 36%
- Investor
- Investor 26%
Claim ledger
Ranked by verification strength, evidence, and original report placement.
- [1]
California Gov. Gavin Newsom vetoed legislation Wednesday that would have penalized Californians for using smart glasses to record people without their permission in changing rooms, doctor's offices and other spaces generally considered private.
- [2]
Newsom wrote in a letter explaining his decision that the bill's definition of a wearable recording device was too broad.
- [3]
Newsom noted that California already bars people from recording someone without their consent in spaces generally considered private.
- [4]
The legislation would have required companies making smart glasses or other wearable devices, starting in 2028, to include a light or some other feature indicating that the person is video or audio recording.
- [5]
The bill would have banned the sale of technology designed to help people conceal a recording light or sound on a smart device.
- [6]
Meta Ray-Bans, smart glasses rolled out in 2021, have grown in popularity, with more than 7 million of the AI-powered devices sold last year.
- [7]
State Sen. Eloise Gomez Reyes wrote the bill and said it would have helped the state respond to the technology's rapid growth.
- [8]
The bill would have made it a misdemeanor to operate a wearable recording device to capture sound or video of another person in any area of a place of business where the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy; someone found guilty would have faced fines of up to $1,500 and/or a prison sentence.
- [9]
"For example, the bill's definition of 'wearable recording device' could include certain smartwatches or other worn devices widely used in public spaces and capable of recording which could lead to significant confusion and unintended consequences," Newsom wrote.
- [10]
Companies making wearables without a recording indicator, or tech designed to block such indicators, would have faced fines of up to $2,500 per violation.
- [11]
TechNet, a group of executives from companies including Meta, Google and Amazon, opposed SB 1130. Executive Director Robert Boykin said: "California already has extensive laws governing unlawful recording, and as currently written, SB 1130 is not the right approach to addressing these concerns."
- [12]
"The stories are enough to cause alarm, and we need to do something as soon as we can," Reyes said at the end of the legislative session.
- [13]
The bill would have been the first of its kind in the nation.
- [14]
"We're still in the early days of building this technology and we're committed to continuing prioritizing privacy as we build," a Meta spokesperson said in a statement.
- [15]
Justin Brookman, director of technology policy for Consumer Reports, said it is important to strengthen privacy laws for wearables because it is not as obvious when a person is using them to record compared with a phone or camera.
- [16]
A Consumer Reports letter to lawmakers referenced a TikTok in which Aniessa Navarro recounted getting a wax when she realized her technician was wearing smart glasses; the technician said the glasses weren't on, but she said the experience was still unnerving.
- [17]
The Consumer Reports letter cited a woman who said she was secretly filmed with smart glasses at a gym and harassed online after the video was uploaded to social media.
- [18]
Many wearables already include an indicator that is on when the device is recording video or audio.
- [19]
Apple announced last month that its latest Apple Watch software will include an always-listening feature that lets wearers replay a transcript of the past 15 seconds and recap and summarize the day's conversations.
- [20]
Several other hardware wearables, such as AI-powered pendants, have launched with mixed reactions.
Sources
4 independent publishers whose own reporting we read for this story.
- engadget.comNewsom Vetoes Smart Glasses Privacy Bill
2 articles · October 1, 2026
- fastcompany.comThis bill on smart glasses just got blocked by California’s Governor Newsom. Here’s why
1 article · October 1, 2026
- implicator.aiNewsom Vetoes Smart Glasses Recording Restrictions
1 article · October 1, 2026
- techcrunch.comCalifornia governor vetoes bill banning use of 'pervert glasses' to secretly record people | TechCrunch
2 articles · October 1, 2026
Topics and entities
Topics
- Recording consent law
- Wearable Privacy And Recording Indicators
- Smart Glasses and Camera Wearables
- US state technology legislation
Entities
- EssilorLuxottica
- Apple
- Consumer Reports
- California SB 1130
- Apple Watch
- Ray-Ban Meta smart glasses
- Eloise Gómez Reyes
- Meta
- Gavin Newsom
- Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program