California SB 1130 Smart Glasses Recording Bill: Not Yet Law

California Smart Glasses Recording Bill SB 1130 Heads to the Governor: What It Would Ban

California Senate Bill 1130, which would criminalize using smart glasses and other wearable recording devices to secretly capture people inside businesses, has cleared both the Senate and the Assembly. It is not yet law.

Information last verified on September 2, 2026.

Status: SB 1130 has passed both houses of the California Legislature. The Senate concurred in the Assembly's amendments on August 31, 2026 (Ayes 29, Noes 10), and the bill was ordered to engrossing and enrolling. It has not been enrolled, presented to Governor Gavin Newsom, signed, or vetoed as of this writing.

Jurisdiction: California only. This article covers state law under the California Penal Code and the California Constitution. It does not address federal law, other states' recording statutes, or workplace policies that individual employers may adopt independently of SB 1130.

What Happened

Senator Eloise Gómez Reyes introduced SB 1130, titled "Invasion of privacy: wearable recording devices," on February 17, 2026. The bill moved through Senate policy and appropriations committees through the spring, passed the Senate on May 27, 2026, and crossed to the Assembly, where it was amended several times, most recently on June 16, June 25, August 13, August 21, and August 26, 2026.

The Assembly passed the amended bill on third reading on August 30, 2026, and sent it back to the Senate for concurrence in its changes. The Senate concurred in the Assembly amendments on August 31, 2026, by a vote of 29 to 10, and ordered the bill to engrossing and enrolling, the administrative step in which the final text is prepared for formal presentation to the Governor.

As of this writing, the official Legislature record shows no "Enrolled," "Presented to Governor," "Chaptered," or "Vetoed" entry. SB 1130 is a passed bill awaiting the next stage in the process described below in What Happens Next, not an enacted statute.

What SB 1130 Would Prohibit

The core of SB 1130 is a new Penal Code section, 632.8, which would read in relevant part:

"A person shall not operate a wearable recording device to capture sound or video of any other person in any area within a place of business where the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy unless the person operating the device has the explicit consent of that person to capture sound or video of that person."

The bill defines a "wearable recording device" as "any device that is designed to be worn on or attached to the body, rather than held by the user, that has the capacity to make sound or video recordings or to transmit sound or video to another device or to the internet." That definition is broad enough to reach smart glasses like Meta's Ray-Ban line, body-worn cameras, and similar wearables, and "place of business" is defined as "any physical office or retail establishment in which members of the public receive goods or services from the business."

The bill carves out several categories from the prohibition. It does not apply to a body-worn camera used by a public officer or peace officer in the course of official duties, nor to a headset, two-way radio, or similar device an employee uses during normal business duties and that their employer provided for that purpose, though an employer who intentionally records a customer through such a device must inform the customer. It also exempts hearing aids and augmentative or alternative communication devices used to overcome a hearing or communication impairment, and assistive technology used by a person with a disability under the federal Americans with Disabilities Act. Separately, the bill specifies that photographing or recording a public officer or peace officer while the officer is in a public place, or while the person recording is somewhere they have a right to be, does not by itself violate the new section. The text does not include a standalone exemption for journalists or news gathering beyond that public-officer provision.

Under section 632.8(c), a person also could not disable "any light, sound, or other indicator on a wearable recording device that indicates that the device is capturing sound or video." A violation of section 632.8 would be a misdemeanor, punishable by "a fine not exceeding one thousand five hundred dollars ($1,500) per violation, or imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment." The bill expressly states that it "does not create a private right of action against a person who has violated this section," so enforcement would rest with prosecutors rather than civil lawsuits between individuals.

SB 1130 pairs that criminal provision with a new consumer-facing rule in a separate code. It would add Chapter 40 (sections 22949.85 through 22949.88) to the Business and Professions Code, barring anyone from manufacturing, selling, delivering, holding, or offering for sale in California a wearable recording device without a recording indicator "sufficiently prominent so that a reasonable person in the vicinity would be alerted to the recording capturing activity." That manufacturing rule becomes operative January 1, 2028, giving device makers a lead time to comply. The same chapter would separately bar manufacturing, selling, or using technology designed primarily to disable a wearable device's recording indicator. A knowing violation of Chapter 40 carries a civil penalty of up to $2,500 per violation, enforced as a business regulation rather than a crime.

What California Law Already Says About Recording

None of this changes California's existing wiretapping and eavesdropping law, which stays in effect whether or not SB 1130 is enacted. California is an all-party consent state for confidential communications: Penal Code section 632 makes it a crime to use an electronic recording or amplifying device to eavesdrop on or record a confidential communication without the consent of every party to it, with a first offense punishable by a fine of up to $2,500, imprisonment, or both. Section 632.7 applies the same all-party consent principle to communications made on cellular or cordless telephones. A related statute, Penal Code section 647(j), separately makes it a crime to secretly photograph or record another person in circumstances where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy, such as through their clothing or in a bathroom or bedroom, regardless of the device used.

SB 1130 does not repeal or amend section 632 itself; it amends the neighboring sections that list law-enforcement and other exceptions (sections 633, 633.1, and 633.5) so those exceptions apply consistently to the new section 632.8. Section 632.8(f) also states explicitly that the new section "does not preclude prosecution under Section 632 or any other law providing for a greater penalty," meaning a wearable-device recording that also qualifies as an illegal recording of a confidential communication under section 632 could still be prosecuted under either statute. The new provision targets a narrower gap in current law: unlike section 632, which turns on whether a communication was confidential, section 632.8 would turn on whether the recording happened inside a place of business where the subject had a reasonable expectation of privacy, regardless of whether any conversation was involved.

What Happens Next

SB 1130 must clear three more steps before it can take effect. First, it goes through engrossing and enrolling, the process by which the Legislature prepares the final, official text of a passed bill. Second, that enrolled bill is formally presented to Governor Newsom. Third, the Governor signs it, vetoes it, or allows it to become law without signature.

The timing of that third step is fixed by the California Constitution, not by tradition. Article IV, section 10(c) of the state constitution bars the Legislature from passing any ordinary bill on or after September 1 of an even-numbered year, which is why SB 1130's final votes landed on August 30 and 31, just ahead of that cutoff. Because SB 1130 was passed by the Legislature before September 1, 2026, article IV, section 10(b)(2) governs what happens once it reaches the Governor's desk: any such bill that is in the Governor's possession on or after September 1 "that is not returned on or before September 30 of that year becomes a statute." In practical terms, once SB 1130 is presented to the Governor, he has until September 30, 2026 to sign or veto it, or it becomes law automatically without his signature, unless it is presented to him before September 1, in which case the ordinary 12-day return period in section 10(b)(3) would apply instead.

If SB 1130 is enacted, article IV, section 8(c)(1) of the state constitution sets the default effective date for the criminal provisions: "a statute enacted at a regular session shall go into effect on January 1 next following a 90-day period from the date of enactment," which points to January 1, 2027, for a bill enacted in September 2026, unless the bill were passed with an urgency clause taking effect immediately, which the text as amended August 26, 2026 does not contain. The manufacturing indicator requirement in the new Business and Professions Code chapter carries its own later operative date, January 1, 2028, written directly into the bill regardless of when the rest of it takes effect. The event that converts this story from a legislative watch item to enacted law is the Governor's signature, his veto, or the expiration of his return period without action.

Analysis: Why This Matters

The following is analysis from the Recording Law Editorial Team.

SB 1130 targets a specific and, until now, unaddressed gap in California's privacy statutes. Existing law regulates recording based on whether a communication was confidential (section 632) or whether the subject was in a state of undress or similarly exposed (section 647(j)). Neither provision squarely addresses a customer or employee being recorded by a stranger's smart glasses while browsing a store or sitting in a waiting room, where a conversation may not be "confidential" in the legal sense but the setting still carries an expectation of privacy. Wearable devices that record passively and without an obvious camera raise a detection problem that handheld phones do not: a phone pointed at someone is usually visible, while glasses-mounted cameras can be far less noticeable, a concern that surfaced publicly in the backlash over Meta's Ray-Ban smart glasses and prompted at least one venue to bar the devices outright. The bill's indicator-light requirements respond directly to that visibility gap, and the manufacturing mandate reaches the point of sale rather than only the point of use.

The bill only reaches recording inside a business; it leaves California's more permissive rules for recording in public places untouched. The bill's structure also shows a deliberate line-drawing exercise. It exempts law enforcement body cameras, employer-issued communication devices, hearing aids and disability-related assistive technology, and recordings of public officers in public places, while leaving ordinary bystander recording of customers and employees inside businesses squarely prohibited absent consent. Whether that line proves workable in practice, particularly around what counts as "explicit consent" in a busy retail environment, is a question that will only be tested once the law is in force and enforcement patterns emerge. This analysis does not speculate about whether the Governor will sign or veto the bill.

How This Affects You

Nothing in SB 1130 is currently enforceable, so no one in California is subject to its criminal penalties or its manufacturing rules yet. California's existing recording laws, including the all-party consent requirement for confidential communications under section 632 and the separate prohibitions on secret recording under section 647(j), remain in effect regardless of what happens to this bill and apply to anyone recording in California today, wearable device or not. Businesses, employees, and device owners who want to track whether SB 1130 becomes law should watch for an "Enrolled," "Presented to Governor," "Chaptered," or "Vetoed" entry in the bill's official history, since none of those has occurred as of this article's last verification date. Employers weighing their own rules on wearable cameras in the meantime can compare their approach against how other employers are handling wearable recording device policies. Anyone with a specific situation involving recording in a business, at work, or in public should consult a California-licensed attorney, since this article describes the law generally and is not a substitute for individualized legal advice.

This article provides general legal information about a pending California bill and does not constitute legal advice. Laws and pending legislation change, and this article may not reflect the most current status. For advice about a specific situation, consult a licensed California attorney. Recording Law Editorial Team, information last verified September 2, 2026.

Related articles

• California's current recording consent rules
• How California treats video-only recording without audio
• Recording in public places under California law
• Meta's Ray-Ban smart glasses and the privacy backlash that preceded SB 1130
• A New York courthouse's ban on smart glasses recording
• How employers are writing their own wearable recording device policies

---

Last updated: 2026-09-02. This is a developing story; details verified as of 2026-09-02.