California Video Recording Laws: Filming, Surveillance, and Consent (2026)

Quick Answer

California treats video recording differently depending on whether the recording captures audio, where it takes place, and whether it involves a reasonable expectation of privacy. Video recording without audio is not governed by the state's two-party consent wiretapping law (Penal Code 632), which only applies to confidential communications. However, other California statutes restrict video recording in private settings, prohibit voyeurism, regulate workplace surveillance, and impose penalties for distributing intimate images without consent.

This guide covers all the major California laws that apply to video recording in 2026, including recent legislation targeting AI-generated deepfakes and wearable recording devices like smart glasses.

Key Point	Answer
Video-Only Recording in Public	Generally legal (no audio consent needed)
Video Recording in Private Spaces	Illegal without consent under PC 647(j)
Audio + Video Recording	Requires all-party consent under PC 632
Workplace Video Surveillance	Permitted in common areas with notice; prohibited in private areas
Residential Security Cameras	Legal on your property; cannot record areas with privacy expectations
Revenge Porn / Deepfakes	Criminal under PC 647(j)(4); expanded by SB 926
Civil Damages	Up to $5,000 per violation or treble damages under PC 637.2 / CC 1708.8

Video Recording vs. Audio Recording in California

Why the Distinction Matters

California is a two-party (all-party) consent state for recording confidential communications. Penal Code 632 makes it illegal to use "an electronic amplifying or recording device to eavesdrop upon or record the confidential communication" without consent from all parties. The penalties for violating PC 632 include fines up to $2,500 per violation for a first offense and up to $10,000 per violation for subsequent offenses, plus potential imprisonment.

However, PC 632 specifically targets audio recording of communications. A silent video recording that captures no sound does not constitute "eavesdropping" or recording of a "confidential communication" under the statute.

What This Means in Practice

If you record video without audio in California:

• PC 632 does not apply because there is no recorded communication
• PC 647(j) still applies if you record someone in a private area or in a state of undress
• Civil Code 1708.8 still applies if you invade someone's privacy to capture the footage
• Other privacy torts may apply if the recording intrudes on a reasonable expectation of privacy

If you record video with audio in California:

• PC 632 applies and you need consent from all parties to the conversation
• All video-specific statutes also apply
• Federal wiretap laws may apply to interstate communications

The practical takeaway: adding audio to a video recording in California creates significantly more legal exposure. Many security camera systems in California record video only for this reason.

Filming in Public Spaces

First Amendment Protections

The First Amendment protects the right to film in public spaces where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. In California, you can generally:

• Film on public streets, sidewalks, and parks
• Record public protests and demonstrations
• Film buildings and landmarks from public property
• Record public meetings and government proceedings
• Film your own interactions with businesses and service providers

The California State Library photography and filming policy confirms that recording is permitted in public government facilities, subject to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions.

Filming Police and Public Officials

You have the right to record law enforcement officers performing their duties in public. The California Department of State Hospitals has issued a formal policy on public recording of law enforcement activity that acknowledges this right. Federal courts have consistently recognized that filming police in public is protected by the First Amendment.

When recording police in California, keep these rules in mind:

• Do not physically interfere with officers performing their duties
• Do not cross police tape or enter restricted areas to film
• Follow lawful orders to maintain a safe distance
• Officers cannot demand you delete footage or surrender your device without a warrant
• You do not need to stop recording if ordered to do so, as long as you are not interfering

For more on this topic, see our full guide on California laws on recording police.

Limitations on Public Filming

Even in public spaces, some restrictions apply:

• Commercial filming on California state park land requires a permit from the California Film Commission
• Recording on federal lands in California may require a permit under the EXPLORE Act (enacted January 2025) for commercial purposes
• Filming that constitutes harassment or stalking can violate California Penal Code 646.9
• Recording where prohibited by signage on private property open to the public (stores, restaurants) may constitute trespass if you refuse to stop

Penal Code 647(j): Video Voyeurism and Invasion of Privacy

What the Law Prohibits

Penal Code 647(j) is California's primary criminal statute addressing invasive video recording. It covers several distinct types of conduct:

PC 647(j)(1) -- Viewing or Recording in Private Spaces: It is illegal to use any instrument, including a camera, telescope, binoculars, or periscope, to look through a window or other opening into a bedroom, bathroom, or similar private area to view the occupant with the intent to invade their privacy.

PC 647(j)(2) -- Upskirt/Hidden Camera Recording: It is illegal to use a concealed camcorder, motion picture camera, or photographic camera to secretly film "under or through the clothing" of another person without their consent for the purpose of viewing their body or undergarments. This provision targets "upskirting" and similar invasive recording.

PC 647(j)(3) -- Recording Undressed Persons: It is illegal to use a concealed camera to secretly record an identifiable person "in a state of full or partial undress" in any room where the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy, without that person's knowledge or consent. This covers hidden cameras in bathrooms, changing rooms, bedrooms, locker rooms, and similar spaces.

Penalties Under PC 647(j)

Violations of PC 647(j) are charged as misdemeanors under California law:

Offense	Maximum Fine	Maximum Jail Time
First offense (any subsection)	$1,000	6 months in county jail
Second or subsequent offense	$2,000	1 year in county jail
Offense involving a minor victim	$2,000	1 year in county jail

In addition to criminal penalties, victims can pursue civil damages under Penal Code 637.2, which allows recovery of $5,000 per violation or three times the amount of actual damages, whichever is greater. Victims may also seek injunctive relief and attorney's fees.

Security Camera Laws in California

Residential Security Cameras

California law permits homeowners and renters to install security cameras on their own property. The legal framework for residential cameras includes:

What is permitted:

• Cameras on your property facing your own yard, driveway, and entry points
• Doorbell cameras (Ring, Nest, etc.) aimed at your front door and porch
• Interior cameras in common areas of your own home

What is restricted:

• Cameras aimed directly into a neighbor's windows, bedrooms, or private spaces (violates PC 647(j))
• Audio recording by security cameras without consent of all parties (violates PC 632)
• Hidden cameras in areas where guests or tenants have a reasonable expectation of privacy

Signage and notice requirements: Property owners who operate camera systems that record beyond their property boundaries should post visible surveillance notices at property entrances. While there is no statewide mandate requiring signage for purely private residential cameras aimed at your own property, posting signs is considered a best practice and can help establish that recorded parties were on notice.

Commercial Security Cameras

Businesses in California can install security cameras in areas where the public and employees do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy. This includes:

• Sales floors, lobbies, and reception areas
• Parking lots and exterior building perimeters
• Warehouses and shipping areas
• Cash register areas and point-of-sale locations

Businesses cannot place cameras in:

• Restrooms and bathrooms
• Employee changing rooms and locker rooms
• Private offices where employees have been told conversations are confidential
• Break rooms designated as private employee spaces

Some industries in California are required by regulation to maintain video surveillance. Banks, certain retail establishments, and cannabis dispensaries must operate security camera systems as a condition of their business licenses.

Security Camera Audio Recording

This is where many California property owners run into trouble. Because California is a two-party consent state for audio recording, a security camera that records audio may violate PC 632 if it captures confidential conversations without consent. Many security professionals in California recommend disabling audio recording on security cameras or posting clear notice that audio recording is in progress.

Workplace Video Surveillance

Current California Law

California does not have a single comprehensive workplace video surveillance statute. Instead, workplace video monitoring is governed by a combination of:

• California Constitution, Article I, Section 1: Provides a right to privacy that applies to both government and private-sector employees
• Penal Code 647(j): Prohibits video recording in areas where workers have a reasonable expectation of privacy
• Labor Code provisions: Restrict monitoring in certain contexts
• CCPA/CPRA: Gives employees rights over personal data, including video and biometric data collected in the workplace

Employers in California can install video cameras in common work areas such as hallways, production floors, and open office spaces. Employers cannot install cameras in restrooms, locker rooms, or other private employee areas. While not legally required in all cases, providing employees with written notice about video surveillance is a strongly recommended best practice.

New Workplace Surveillance Legislation (2025-2026)

The California Legislature has introduced several bills to regulate workplace surveillance more comprehensively:

AB 1331 (Workplace Surveillance): This bill would limit the use of workplace surveillance tools by employers, including prohibiting employers from monitoring workers in employee-only, employer-designated areas. The bill would also give workers the right to leave behind workplace surveillance devices when entering certain employee-only areas. AB 1331 was moved to the inactive file in September 2025 and has not been signed into law.

AB 1221 and SB 238 (Workplace Surveillance Notification): These bills establish notification requirements for employers using surveillance tools. Employers who began using a surveillance tool before January 1, 2026 must provide notice by February 1, 2026. The required notice must describe the worker data collected, the intended purpose of the surveillance tool, and how the surveillance is necessary to meet that purpose.

CCPA/CPRA and Workplace Video

Under the California Consumer Privacy Act as amended by the California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA), employees have specific rights related to video data collected in the workplace:

• Right to know what personal information (including video footage) the employer collects
• Right to limit the use of sensitive personal information, which includes biometric data
• Right to delete personal information in certain circumstances
• Right to opt out of the sale or sharing of personal information

The California Privacy Protection Agency finalized regulations in September 2025 covering cybersecurity audits, risk assessments, and automated decision-making technology (ADMT), effective January 1, 2026. Employers using video surveillance systems with facial recognition or AI analytics should evaluate their compliance with these new rules.

Revenge Porn and Nonconsensual Intimate Images

Penal Code 647(j)(4): Criminal Penalties

Penal Code 647(j)(4) makes it a crime to intentionally distribute intimate images of another identifiable person when:

• The people in the image agreed or understood the image would remain private
• The person distributing the image knows or should know that distribution will cause serious emotional distress
• The person depicted actually suffers that distress

The California Attorney General's office maintains a dedicated cyber exploitation page with resources for victims and law enforcement.

Penalties: A first violation is a misdemeanor punishable by up to six months in county jail, a fine up to $1,000, or both. A second violation carries up to one year in county jail and a fine up to $2,000. The statute of limitations extends to one year after discovery of the offense, but no later than 15 years after the act occurred.

SB 926: AI-Generated Deepfake Intimate Images

Governor Newsom signed SB 926 into law on September 19, 2024, effective January 1, 2025. This law expanded California's revenge porn statute to cover AI-generated sexually explicit deepfakes. SB 926 makes it a crime to create and distribute AI-generated sexually explicit images of an identifiable person:

• When the image is realistic enough that a reasonable person would believe it is authentic
• When the distributor knows or should know distribution will cause serious emotional distress
• When the depicted person actually suffers that distress

This law was part of a broader legislative package addressing AI and deepfakes, authored by Senator Aisha Wahab (D-Hayward). The Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office noted that 90 to 95 percent of all deepfakes online are nonconsensual intimate media, making this a growing area of criminal law.

Civil Code 1708.85: Civil Remedies for Victims

Civil Code 1708.85 provides victims of nonconsensual intimate image distribution with civil remedies, including:

• Temporary restraining orders
• Injunctive relief (court orders to remove images)
• Monetary damages
• The ability to file under a pseudonym to protect privacy during litigation

The Anti-Paparazzi Law: Civil Code 1708.8

Physical and Constructive Invasion of Privacy

California enacted the nation's first anti-paparazzi law in 1998 following the death of Princess Diana. Civil Code 1708.8 creates civil liability for two types of conduct:

Physical invasion of privacy occurs when a person knowingly enters another person's land or airspace without permission, or commits a trespass, to capture visual images, sound recordings, or other impressions of someone engaged in a private, personal, or familial activity. The invasion must be offensive to a reasonable person.

Constructive invasion of privacy occurs when a person uses a visual or auditory enhancing device (telephoto lens, directional microphone, drone) to capture images of someone engaged in a personal or familial activity, under circumstances where the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy, and the image could not have been captured without trespassing unless the enhancing device was used.

Drone-Specific Provisions

AB 856, signed in 2015, amended Civil Code 1708.8 to explicitly include entering "the airspace above the land of another person" in the definition of physical invasion of privacy. This means flying a drone over someone's property to record them engaged in private activities carries the same civil liability as physically trespassing.

Penalties and Damages

Violators of Civil Code 1708.8 face significant financial consequences:

Remedy	Amount
General and special damages	Up to 3x actual damages (treble damages)
Punitive damages	Determined by court under CC 3294 standards
Civil fine	$5,000 to $50,000 per violation
Disgorgement of commercial proceeds	Full amount if violation was for commercial purpose

A "commercial purpose" is defined as any act done with the expectation of a sale, financial gain, or other consideration. When the recording was made for profit, the court can order the violator to surrender all proceeds.

Exemptions

The statute exempts law enforcement and government employees conducting investigations supported by articulable suspicion. It also protects secondary distributors who republish previously lawful material.

Wearable Recording Devices and Smart Glasses

SB 1130: The Wearable Device Privacy Protection Act (2026)

Senator Eloise Gomez Reyes introduced SB 1130 on February 17, 2026, to address a growing gap in California privacy law created by commercially available smart glasses and wearable recording devices. The bill would add two new sections to the Penal Code:

Proposed Penal Code 632.8 would:

• Require explicit consent before using a wearable recording device to capture sound or video of others in a place of business where people have a reasonable expectation of privacy
• Prohibit disabling the recording indicator light on any wearable device
• Define "place of business" as any physical office or retail establishment where the public receives goods or services
• Define "wearable recording device" as any device worn on or attached to the body with recording or transmission capabilities

Proposed Penal Code 632.9 would:

• Prohibit manufacturing, selling, or offering technology that disables recording indicator lights
• Prohibit purchasing or using technology designed to disable indicator lights

Penalties under SB 1130:

Offense	Fine	Imprisonment
First violation of 632.8 or 632.9	Up to $2,500	Up to 1 year
Subsequent violations	Up to $10,000	Up to 1 year

As of March 2026, SB 1130 remains in the legislative process and has not been signed into law. However, it signals California's direction on regulating wearable recording technology.

Current Law on Smart Glasses

Until SB 1130 or similar legislation passes, smart glasses in California are governed by existing statutes:

• Audio recording through smart glasses is subject to PC 632 all-party consent requirements
• Video-only recording in public spaces is generally permitted
• Video recording in private spaces without consent violates PC 647(j)
• Biometric data captured by smart glasses (facial geometry, gait analysis) may be regulated under the CCPA/CPRA as sensitive personal information

Recording on Private Property

Landlord and Tenant Situations

California law addresses video recording in rental properties:

• Landlords can install security cameras in common areas (lobbies, parking structures, exterior hallways) with proper notice
• Landlords cannot install cameras inside rental units or in areas where tenants have a reasonable expectation of privacy
• Tenants can install security cameras within their own units without landlord consent (subject to lease terms about modifications)
• Tenants can record video of their own interactions with landlords if they are in a common area or public space

For detailed coverage, see our guide on California landlord-tenant recording and surveillance laws.

Businesses and Customers

Businesses in California may record customers on video in areas open to the public without individual consent. This includes:

• Store aisles and shopping areas
• Restaurant dining rooms
• Hotel lobbies and common areas
• Parking lots

However, businesses should post visible signage indicating that video surveillance is in use, and audio recording requires all-party consent under PC 632.

Using Video Recordings as Evidence in California

Admissibility Standards

Video recordings are admissible as evidence in California courts when they meet authentication and relevance requirements under the California Evidence Code:

• Authentication (Evidence Code 1400-1421): The offering party must prove the video is a fair and accurate representation of what it claims to show
• Relevance (Evidence Code 350-352): The video must tend to prove or disprove a fact at issue
• Best evidence rule (Evidence Code 1500-1510): The original recording is preferred, though copies are often accepted

Illegally Obtained Recordings

Under Penal Code 631(c), evidence obtained through illegal wiretapping or eavesdropping is inadmissible in any judicial, administrative, legislative, or other proceeding. This exclusionary rule applies to recordings that violate PC 632 (audio recording without consent).

Video-only recordings obtained in violation of PC 647(j) may also be excluded as evidence, and the person who made the recording could face criminal charges.

Penalties Summary: California Video Recording Violations

Statute	Violation	Criminal Penalty	Civil Liability
PC 632	Recording audio without consent	Up to $2,500 fine + jail (first); $10,000 + prison (repeat)	$5,000 per violation or 3x damages
PC 647(j)(1-3)	Video voyeurism / hidden cameras	Up to $1,000 fine + 6 months jail (first)	$5,000 per violation or 3x damages
PC 647(j)(4)	Distributing intimate images	Up to $1,000 fine + 6 months jail (first)	Damages + injunctive relief
SB 926 (PC 647(j)(4) expanded)	AI deepfake intimate images	Up to $1,000 fine + 6 months jail	Damages + injunctive relief
CC 1708.8	Physical/constructive privacy invasion	N/A (civil statute)	$5,000-$50,000 fine + treble damages
CC 1708.85	Nonconsensual intimate images (civil)	N/A (civil statute)	Damages + restraining order + pseudonymous filing

More California Recording Laws

• California Recording Laws (Overview)
• California Audio Recording Laws
• California Dashcam Laws
• California Landlord-Tenant Recording Laws
• California Laws on Recording Doctors
• California Laws on Recording in Public
• California Laws on Recording Police
• California Phone Call Recording Laws
• California School Recording Laws
• California Security Camera and Surveillance Laws
• California Voyeurism and Hidden Camera Laws
• California Workplace Recording Laws