Delaware Smart Glasses Recording Laws (2026)

Smart glasses are legal to own and wear in Delaware, but the audio they capture is regulated by two overlapping criminal statutes that together require all-party consent for any private conversation. Video recording in public places is generally lawful; audio recording of a private conversation without the knowledge and consent of every participant exposes the wearer to both felony wiretapping liability under 11 Del. C. § 2402 and misdemeanor privacy liability under 11 Del. C. § 1335(a)(4).

Are smart glasses legal to own and wear in Delaware?

Smart glasses, including Meta Ray-Ban AI glasses, are legal consumer devices in Delaware. The state has enacted no statute banning or restricting the ownership or wearing of smart glasses as of 2026. No pending Delaware legislation specifically targets wearable recording devices, unlike California's SB 1130 (pending as of 2026), which would regulate covert smart-glasses recording.

The Meta Ray-Ban glasses include a built-in capture LED indicator (a white light located near the right frame) that illuminates whenever the camera is actively recording video, taking a photo, or livestreaming. Meta's official guidance instructs wearers to let the LED shine and to stop recording if anyone asks them to opt out. The LED is designed to give bystanders notice that recording is occurring, but it does not satisfy Delaware's all-party consent requirement for audio capture.

Wearing the glasses in public, without recording, raises no legal issue. The legal analysis begins the moment the wearer activates audio or video capture.

Recording video in public vs. private spaces

Under the constitutional framework established in Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967), persons in public spaces (streets, sidewalks, parks, parking lots) have a reduced reasonable expectation of privacy from being observed and recorded. Silent video recording in these spaces is not a wiretap under federal law (18 U.S.C. § 2510(18) limits the Wiretap Act to "aural transfers" containing the human voice), and Delaware's wiretapping chapter similarly targets interception of wire, oral, or electronic communications, not silent video.

This means a smart glasses wearer walking through Wilmington and recording video of public streets, storefronts, or events is not violating Delaware wiretapping law by that video capture alone. The same analysis applies to recording an open public meeting under 29 Del. C. § 10004.

The analysis changes significantly in private or semi-private spaces. Inside a private home, a medical office, a restaurant booth, a workplace conference room, or any other space where participants reasonably expect their conversations to be private, even video recording that incidentally captures audio implicates the consent statutes. A smart glasses wearer invited into a private home who silently records the visit is in a legally gray zone for the video; if the glasses capture any audio of conversation, both § 2402 and § 1335(a)(4) are triggered.

The practical takeaway: smart glasses should record video only in plainly public spaces and only audio when every participant in any private conversation present has consented.

Recording audio in Delaware: the two-statute conflict

Delaware is unusual among US states in that two separate criminal statutes govern audio recording, and they conflict on the consent standard. Understanding both is essential for any smart glasses user in the state.

11 Del. C. § 2402: the wiretapping statute

Delaware's wiretapping statute is modeled on the federal Wiretap Act. Section 2402(a) prohibits intentionally intercepting any wire, oral, or electronic communication. Section 2402(c)(4) creates an exception: it is not unlawful for a person who is a party to the communication, or where one of the parties has given prior consent, to intercept, provided the interception is not for a criminal or tortious purpose.

On its face, this language permits a smart glasses wearer to record a conversation they are participating in without telling the other party. Violating § 2402 (recording without satisfying even the one-party exception) is a Class E felony, punishable by up to five years imprisonment and a fine of up to $10,000.

11 Del. C. § 1335(a)(4): the privacy statute

Section 1335, titled "Violation of privacy," operates independently of the wiretapping chapter and sits in a different part of the Delaware Criminal Code. Subsection (a)(4) makes it a criminal offense for any person to "intercept without the consent of all parties thereto a message by telephone, telegraph, letter or other means of communicating privately, including private conversation."

The phrase "including private conversation" expressly reaches in-person oral exchanges, not just phone calls or written messages. A smart glasses wearer who records a workplace meeting, a one-on-one conversation, or a personal discussion in any private setting without notifying and obtaining consent from every participant violates § 1335(a)(4). That violation is a Class A misdemeanor under § 1335(c), carrying up to one year imprisonment and a fine of up to $2,300.

Why Delaware is treated as all-party consent in practice

The conflict between § 2402(c)(4) (one-party exception) and § 1335(a)(4) (all-party required) has never been definitively resolved by the Delaware Supreme Court or Superior Court. The only judicial opinion addressing the tension is United States v. Vespe, 389 F. Supp. 1359 (D. Del. 1975), a fifty-year-old federal district court decision that held a party may record their own conversation. That ruling is non-binding on Delaware state courts and is widely regarded as legally unreliable by current practitioners.

Because § 1335(a)(4) independently creates criminal liability even if § 2402(c)(4) offers a defense, and because no court has held the wiretapping chapter to preempt or override the privacy chapter, the safe and standard approach is to treat Delaware as an all-party consent state. A smart glasses wearer in Delaware who records audio of a private conversation without notifying every participant and obtaining their consent risks Class A misdemeanor prosecution under § 1335(a)(4), even if § 2402(c)(4) might theoretically provide a partial defense.

This dual-statute exposure is directly relevant to smart glasses because the covert appearance of the device makes non-consensual recording easy and the resulting criminal exposure real.

Recording audio of private conversations: what all-party consent means for wearers

In a two-party (all-party) consent state like Delaware, the smart glasses wearer cannot simply inform one participant that recording is occurring and rely on that consent to record everyone. Every person whose private conversation is captured must know and agree to the recording.

For smart glasses, this creates a practical challenge: the glasses look like ordinary eyewear, so bystanders and conversation partners may have no idea recording is occurring. The Meta capture LED helps, but it does not substitute for verbal or written consent from each participant.

Safe practices for smart glasses audio recording in Delaware include:

• Verbally announcing at the start of any private conversation that the glasses are recording and waiting for explicit agreement from every participant before the recording continues.
• For business or professional meetings, obtaining written consent before the meeting begins rather than relying on verbal confirmation.
• Turning off audio capture when in any semi-private space (restaurants, break rooms, offices, private vehicles) where participants may expect their conversation to be confidential, unless all-party consent has been obtained.
• Remembering that consent obtained through deception or implied from silence does not satisfy the statute. Consent must be knowing and affirmative.

The all-party consent requirement applies regardless of whether the conversation is in person, on the phone, or transmitted electronically. A smart glasses wearer in Delaware calling someone in a one-party consent state must still comply with § 1335(a)(4) as to their own conduct.

Where smart glasses may never be used to record

Separate from the audio consent rules, Delaware law absolutely prohibits recording in locations where individuals have an established reasonable expectation of privacy from being visually observed.

Section 1335(a)(6) prohibits secretly recording a person in a state of undress in any place where persons normally disrobe, including fitting rooms, dressing rooms, locker rooms, and bathrooms. Section 1335(a)(7) prohibits secretly recording under or through a person's clothing. Both violations are classified as a Class G felony under § 1335(c), carrying up to two years imprisonment.

These prohibitions apply to smart glasses exactly as they apply to hidden cameras or smartphones. The wearable form factor of glasses does not create any exception. In fact, the covert appearance of smart glasses (indistinguishable from ordinary eyewear) makes their use in these prohibited spaces particularly serious because it demonstrates deliberate concealment of the recording device.

The federal Video Voyeurism Prevention Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1801, independently prohibits recording private areas of individuals on federal property where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy. That federal prohibition operates alongside, not instead of, Delaware § 1335.

Smart glasses users must never activate video or audio recording in:

• Restrooms, bathrooms, and toilet facilities
• Locker rooms, gym changing areas, and fitness studio changing rooms
• Fitting rooms and dressing rooms
• Private residential bedrooms or any space in a private home where a person expects to be unobserved
• Medical examination rooms or hospital rooms

The prohibition on recording in these spaces cannot be waived by consent of one party and is not excused by accident or equipment malfunction.

Facial recognition and biometric data

Delaware has not enacted a dedicated biometric privacy statute comparable to Illinois's Biometric Information Privacy Act (740 ILCS 14) or Texas's Capture or Use of Biometric Identifier Act (Tex. Bus. & Com. Code § 503.001) as of 2026. There is no Delaware statute that specifically requires written consent before capturing face geometry or enrolling biometric identifiers in a database.

However, using smart glasses with facial-recognition software to identify individuals without their knowledge raises significant civil liability in Delaware. Under the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652B, intentional intrusion upon another's seclusion (including electronic intrusion) is an invasion of privacy if it would be highly offensive to a reasonable person. A smart glasses wearer who uses facial recognition to identify strangers on the street and compile personal data about them without their knowledge satisfies both elements of that test.

The 2024 I-XRAY demonstration, in which Harvard students used Meta Ray-Ban smart glasses combined with third-party facial-recognition software to identify strangers in real time and retrieve home addresses and partial Social Security numbers, illustrated that this risk is not hypothetical. Delaware residents whose biometric data is captured and processed interstate may also have claims under the laws of the state where processing occurs, including Illinois BIPA claims if the data touches Illinois-based servers.

Wearers who use smart glasses in Delaware for any application involving facial recognition should be aware that no state statute currently grants them permission to do so without consent, and civil intrusion-upon-seclusion liability requires no publication of the data; the act of capture itself can be sufficient.

Penalties summary

Conduct	Statute	Classification	Max Imprisonment	Max Fine
Wiretap interception (no valid consent defense)	11 Del. C. § 2402(a)	Class E Felony	5 years	$10,000
Disclosure of intercepted communications	11 Del. C. § 2402(a)	Class E Felony	5 years	$10,000
Recording without all-party consent (private conversation)	11 Del. C. § 1335(a)(4)	Class A Misdemeanor	1 year	$2,300
Voyeurism recording in spaces where people disrobe	11 Del. C. § 1335(a)(6)	Class G Felony	2 years	Varies
Upskirt / under-clothing recording	11 Del. C. § 1335(a)(7)	Class G Felony	2 years	Varies

Civil liability under 11 Del. C. § 2409 allows a victim of unlawful interception to recover actual damages (at a minimum $100 per day of violation or $1,000, whichever is higher), plus punitive damages for willful conduct and reasonable attorney fees. Good-faith reliance on a court order is a complete defense under the wiretapping chapter but does not extend to § 1335 violations.

Both criminal exposure and civil liability are independent: a single act of recording can produce a criminal charge under § 2402 or § 1335(a)(4), plus a civil lawsuit under § 2409 and a common-law invasion-of-privacy claim.

Practical tips for smart glasses users in Delaware

1. Default to verbal disclosure. Before activating audio recording in any private setting, say clearly that you are wearing recording glasses and wait for every person present to affirmatively agree. Do not rely on the LED alone.

2. Turn off audio in semi-private spaces. Restaurants, break rooms, private vehicles, offices, and similar spaces can give rise to private-conversation expectations even though they are not residences. Disable audio or leave the recording function off unless everyone present has consented.

3. Keep the LED visible and unobscured. Meta's capture LED is the primary external signal that recording is occurring. Covering or disabling it eliminates the only visible notice to bystanders and strengthens any prosecution's argument about intent.

4. Never record in spaces where people disrobe. The Class G felony prohibition under § 1335(a)(6) applies regardless of consent, intent, or how the recording is used afterward.

5. Treat phone calls as all-party. If you are on a call while wearing recording glasses and the glasses capture the audio, § 1335(a)(4) requires all-party consent for the call recording as well.

6. Business and workplace use requires consent. Workplace meetings, HR conversations, and client calls are private communications under § 1335(a)(4). Obtain written consent before recording any professional interaction in Delaware.

7. Understand that both statutes apply. Because Delaware's two recording statutes conflict and no court has resolved the conflict, you cannot safely rely on the wiretapping chapter's one-party exception to shield recording you do under the privacy chapter. Assume all-party consent is required for every private audio recording in the state.

This article provides general legal information, not legal advice. Recording law applies differently to each situation and can change. Consult a licensed Delaware attorney for advice about your specific circumstances.

Sources