California SB 1130 Smart Glasses Bill Vetoed by the Governor

California Smart Glasses Recording Bill SB 1130 Is Vetoed: What It Would Have Banned

California Senate Bill 1130, which would have criminalized using smart glasses and other wearable recording devices to secretly capture people inside businesses, was vetoed by Governor Gavin Newsom on September 30, 2026. None of it became law. Our fuller report on the veto is at California vetoes the SB 1130 smart glasses recording bill.

Information last verified on October 1, 2026.

Update, October 1, 2026: Governor Newsom vetoed SB 1130 on September 30, 2026. The Senate's history entry for the same day reads "In Senate. Consideration of Governor's veto pending." This article has been updated from its original September 10, 2026 version, which reported the bill as awaiting the Governor's action.

Status: Vetoed by the Governor on September 30, 2026. The Legislature's bill history log for SB 1130 records "09/30/26 Vetoed by the Governor." followed, the same day, by "09/30/26 In Senate. Consideration of Governor's veto pending." The bill had passed both houses on August 31, 2026, when the Senate concurred in the Assembly's amendments (Ayes 29, Noes 10), and it was enrolled and presented to the Governor at 2 p.m. on September 9, 2026. SB 1130 is not law. Under article IV, section 10(a) of the California Constitution a veto returns a bill to its house of origin for reconsideration, which is the posture the Senate's open entry reflects; no override vote appears on the official record as of October 1, 2026.

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.

The official Legislature record shows an enrolled date of September 4, 2026, followed by a September 9, 2026 history entry reading "Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 2 p.m." On September 30, 2026 the log added "Vetoed by the Governor." and, the same day, "In Senate. Consideration of Governor's veto pending." SB 1130 is a vetoed bill, in the posture 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 changed California's existing wiretapping and eavesdropping law, which stays in effect and which the veto leaves exactly where it was. 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 reached the end of its path. Engrossing and enrolling, the process by which the Legislature prepares the final, official text of a passed bill, finished on September 4, 2026, the enrolled date shown on the bill's status page. That enrolled bill was then formally presented to Governor Newsom, which the history log recorded at 2 p.m. on September 9, 2026. On September 30, 2026 the Governor returned it with a veto, and the Senate's log entry for that date records that consideration of the veto is pending in the house of origin.

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) governed what happened once it reached 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." SB 1130 was presented on September 9, 2026, so it was in the Governor's possession after September 1 and that paragraph, rather than the ordinary 12-day return period in section 10(b)(3), controlled. In practical terms, the Governor had until September 30, 2026 to sign or veto SB 1130, and he vetoed it on that date, so the automatic-enactment path in that paragraph never came into play.

Because the bill was vetoed, neither of the dates written into or around it ever arrives. Article IV, section 8(c)(1) of the state constitution would have set the default effective date for the criminal provisions, providing that "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 pointed to January 1, 2027 for a bill enacted in September 2026, the enrolled text carrying no urgency clause. The manufacturing indicator requirement in the proposed Business and Professions Code chapter carried its own later operative date of January 1, 2028, written directly into the bill. Neither takes effect.

What a veto leaves behind is set out in article IV, section 10(a). The bill returns to its house of origin, which enters the Governor's objections in its journal and reconsiders the bill, and it becomes a statute over the veto only if each house then passes it again by a two-thirds rollcall vote. The Senate's September 30, 2026 entry records that consideration of the veto is pending, and no override vote appears on the official record as of October 1, 2026. This article does not predict whether one will occur.

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 would have proved workable in practice, particularly around what counts as "explicit consent" in a busy retail environment, is a question the veto leaves untested. This analysis does not speculate about what the Legislature does next.

How This Affects You

Nothing in SB 1130 is enforceable, and after the veto nothing in it is scheduled to become enforceable, so no one in California is subject to its criminal penalties or its manufacturing rules. 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 were tracking SB 1130 can read the outcome on the bill's official history, which carries a "Vetoed by the Governor." entry dated September 30, 2026 followed by the Senate's entry recording that consideration of the veto is pending. 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 vetoed 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 October 1, 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: 2026-10-01. This is a developing story; details verified as of 2026-10-01.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is SB 1130 California law?

No. Governor Newsom vetoed SB 1130 on September 30, 2026, and the Senate history entry for the same date reads 'In Senate. Consideration of Governor's veto pending.' Nothing in the bill is enforceable.

What would SB 1130 actually ban?

It would add Penal Code section 632.8, prohibiting a person from operating a wearable recording device, such as smart glasses or a body-worn camera, to capture audio or video of another person inside a place of business where that person has a reasonable expectation of privacy, without that person's explicit consent.

Does SB 1130 apply to smart glasses like Meta's Ray-Ban line?

The bill's definition of 'wearable recording device' covers any device worn or attached to the body that can record or transmit sound or video, which is broad enough to include camera-equipped smart glasses, though the bill does not name any specific product.

What penalty would a violation of SB 1130 carry?

As drafted, a violation of the new Penal Code section 632.8 would be a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of up to $1,500, up to one year in county jail, or both, per violation. The bill does not create a private right of action for individuals to sue.

Are police body cameras covered by SB 1130?

No. The bill exempts a body-worn camera used by a public officer or peace officer in the course of official duties from the definition of a regulated wearable recording device.

Does SB 1130 change California's existing two-party consent law?

No. Penal Code section 632, California's all-party consent requirement for recording confidential communications, is unaffected. SB 1130 adds a separate section aimed at recordings inside businesses rather than amending section 632 itself.

Would SB 1130 have taken effect on January 1, 2027?

That was the default date before the veto. Under article IV, section 8(c)(1) of the California Constitution, a regular-session statute takes effect on January 1 following a 90-day period after enactment, which pointed to January 1, 2027 for the bulk of the bill, with the separate manufacturing indicator requirement carrying its own later operative date of January 1, 2028. The veto means neither date applies.

What happens to SB 1130 after the veto?

Under article IV, section 10(a) of the California Constitution a vetoed bill is returned to its house of origin, which enters the Governor's objections in its journal and reconsiders the bill; it becomes a statute over the veto only if each house passes it again by a two-thirds rollcall vote. The Senate's September 30, 2026 history entry records that consideration of the veto is pending, and no override vote appears on the official record.