Michigan
Michigan Smart Glasses Recording Laws (2026)
Yes, smart glasses are legal to own and wear in Michigan, but whether you can legally record with them depends on a critical distinction: who is doing the recording and what is being captured. For audio of private conversations, Michigan's eavesdropping statute is written as all-party consent, but a 1982 Court of Appeals decision means participants in a conversation may record it themselves. A non-participant who secretly captures someone else's private discussion needs consent from all parties.
Are Smart Glasses Legal to Own and Wear in Michigan?
Yes. Michigan has no statute that restricts owning, purchasing, or wearing smart glasses such as Meta Ray-Ban AI glasses. The device is sold freely throughout the state and its possession raises no legal issue under Michigan or federal law.
The legal analysis begins only when the glasses are used to capture audio or video, and it depends entirely on the content recorded, the location, and your role in any conversation being captured.
Recording Video in Public vs. Private Spaces
Public spaces
Recording video in a public space (a street, sidewalk, park, retail store, or other location generally accessible to the public) is lawful in Michigan under both state and federal law. When a person is in public, they have a diminished reasonable expectation of privacy from being seen or filmed. The federal Wiretap Act's definition of an "oral communication" is limited to communications uttered under circumstances justifying a reasonable expectation against interception; silent video in public does not trigger it. Michigan law tracks this same principle.
This means smart glasses worn on a public sidewalk, at an outdoor event, or in a public building generally do not create legal exposure from video capture alone.
Semi-public and private spaces
The calculus shifts in semi-public or private spaces. A private home, a medical office, a hotel room, or a closed meeting room carries a strong reasonable expectation of privacy. Even spaces that are technically accessible (such as a restaurant booth during a private conversation or a workplace break room) can give rise to a reasonable expectation of privacy in the content of spoken words exchanged there.
Under Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967), the constitutional test for a reasonable expectation of privacy requires both a subjective expectation and one that society recognizes as objectively reasonable. Michigan courts apply this same framework to evaluate whether a location or conversation is "private" within the meaning of the eavesdropping statute.
Recording inside private places
MCL 750.539d prohibits installing or using a device to observe, record, transmit, photograph, or eavesdrop upon persons in a private place without their consent. A first offense is a felony carrying up to 2 years imprisonment and a $2,000 fine. A subsequent offense carries up to 5 years and a $5,000 fine. Using smart glasses to secretly video-record someone inside their home, a locker room, a medical office, or any other private place falls squarely within this statute.
Recording Audio and Michigan's Eavesdropping Law: The Participant Exception
This is the load-bearing legal issue for smart glasses users in Michigan, and it requires careful explanation.
The statute: all-party on its face
Michigan's eavesdropping statute, MCL 750.539c, prohibits using any device to "overhear, record, amplify or transmit any part of the private discourse of others without the permission of all persons engaged in the discourse." Read literally, that language appears to require the consent of every participant: a classic all-party consent rule.
The key definition is in MCL 750.539a: "eavesdrop" means "to overhear, record, amplify or transmit any part of the private discourse of others without the permission of all persons engaged in the discourse." The phrase "private discourse of others" is the phrase that has driven litigation.
Sullivan v. Gray: the participant exception
In Sullivan v. Gray, the Michigan Court of Appeals interpreted "the private discourse of others" to mean discourse by persons other than the recorder. In other words, a person who is a party to the conversation cannot be eavesdropping on "the discourse of others," because they are part of the discourse themselves. The court held that Michigan's statute does not prohibit a participant from recording a conversation to which they are a party.
This participant exception has remained controlling Michigan precedent since 1982. In practical terms, it produces an outcome similar to a one-party consent state for participants: if you are part of the conversation (a direct participant exchanging words with the other person), you may record that conversation without notifying or obtaining consent from the others.
What the participant exception does NOT cover
The exception is narrow and should not be stretched. It applies only to a genuine participant: someone actively engaged in the exchange of words. It does not protect:
- A person who holds smart glasses up to record a conversation happening between two other people nearby who are not speaking to the recorder.
- An employee sent by a third party to capture a conversation in a room where the recorder is not meaningfully participating.
- Recording the "private discourse of others" in any context where the recorder is not a true participant.
A non-participant who secretly captures someone else's private conversation faces a felony charge under MCL 750.539c: up to 2 years imprisonment and a $2,000 fine.
Practical application for smart glasses
For a smart glasses wearer in Michigan, the participant exception means:
- Recording a conversation you are having with someone (in a coffee shop, at work, or at a social gathering) is lawful under Michigan law. You are a participant. You do not need to disclose the recording.
- Recording a private conversation between two other people that you are not part of is illegal. The statute's all-party requirement applies fully to non-participants.
- Recording your own video content in public without engaging in any private discourse raises no eavesdropping issue at all.
This nuance makes Michigan legally distinct from both pure one-party states (where any participant can record any conversation they are part of) and pure all-party states (where even participants must obtain consent). Michigan is effectively one-party for participants and all-party for eavesdroppers; the line between the two requires honest self-assessment about your role in a given exchange.
For more on Michigan's consent framework, see the Michigan Recording Laws page.
Where You Cannot Record: Voyeurism and Unlawful Surveillance
Regardless of consent rules, Michigan law absolutely prohibits recording in locations where a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy from visual observation of their body or intimate conduct.
MCL 750.539j prohibits:
- Surveilling another person who is partially or fully unclad in circumstances where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
- Photographing or recording the genitalia, buttocks, undergarments, or female breasts of a person without their consent under circumstances where they reasonably expect privacy.
- Distributing, disseminating, or transmitting recordings obtained in violation of these prohibitions.
Penalties under MCL 750.539j are serious. A first offense for surveillance is a felony carrying up to 2 years imprisonment and a $2,000 fine. For the recording, photography, and distribution offenses, the penalty is a felony carrying up to 5 years imprisonment and a $5,000 fine. A second surveillance offense also escalates to 5 years and a $5,000 fine.
The locations where this law applies most clearly include restrooms, locker rooms, gym changing areas, fitting rooms, private residences, hotel rooms, and medical examination rooms. The covert appearance of smart glasses (they look exactly like ordinary eyewear to bystanders) does not create any exception. The hidden nature of the recording is in fact a factor that can aggravate the offense.
Federal law adds a parallel floor: , the Video Voyeurism Prevention Act, separately prohibits recording a person's private areas on federal property without consent where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
The rule is absolute: no location in Michigan, and no consent from any third party, can legalize recording someone's intimate areas in a space where they reasonably expect privacy from visual observation.
Facial Recognition and Biometric Privacy
Michigan does not have a dedicated biometric privacy statute equivalent to Illinois's Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA), Texas's Capture or Use of Biometric Identifier Act (CUBI), or Washington's biometric identifier law (RCW Chapter 19.375).
Under Michigan state law alone, using a smart glasses facial recognition application to scan and identify strangers does not trigger a standalone biometric statute the way it would in Illinois (where BIPA imposes up to $5,000 per person in statutory damages for capturing face geometry without written consent) or Texas (where CUBI allows civil penalties of up to $25,000 per violation for commercial capture without consent).
Michigan residents and visitors are not without recourse, however. The federal Wiretap Act, common-law privacy torts, and the general principles of intrusion upon seclusion still apply. Under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652B, intentionally intruding upon the solitude or seclusion of another person in a manner that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person creates civil liability regardless of whether any state biometric statute applies. The act of covert recording itself creates that liability without requiring publication of the footage.
The biometric risk is most acute through third-party software integrations. Meta's Ray-Ban AI glasses provide a camera but do not natively run facial recognition. The legal exposure arises when a user pairs the glasses with a third-party facial recognition application to identify strangers. In October 2024, Harvard students demonstrated the "I-XRAY" system by pairing Meta Ray-Ban glasses with a reverse facial-recognition search engine to identify strangers in real time and retrieve their home addresses and partial Social Security numbers within minutes. That demonstration used third-party software, not Meta's own systems. Michigan users who replicate this type of integration face civil tort liability and, if the information is used for harassment or stalking, criminal exposure under Michigan's cyberstalking and surveillance statutes.
Penalties Summary
Michigan's eavesdropping and surveillance violations are uniformly classified as felonies. There are no misdemeanor-level offenses in the 750.539 series.
| Offense | Statute | Maximum Penalty |
|---|---|---|
| Eavesdropping on private conversation (non-participant) | MCL 750.539c | 2 years / $2,000 fine |
| Installing/using device in private place (1st offense) | MCL 750.539d | 2 years / $2,000 fine |
| Installing/using device in private place (subsequent) | MCL 750.539d | 5 years / $5,000 fine |
| Distributing unlawfully obtained recordings | MCL 750.539d | 5 years / $5,000 fine |
| Voyeurism surveillance (1st offense) | MCL 750.539j | 2 years / $2,000 fine |
| Voyeurism recording or distribution | MCL 750.539j | 5 years / $5,000 fine |
Beyond criminal penalties, MCL 750.539h provides a civil cause of action for persons injured by violations of MCL 750.539a through 750.539j. A civil plaintiff may recover actual damages, punitive damages, and attorney fees. The civil remedy exists independently of any criminal prosecution.
At the federal level, the Wiretap Act () imposes up to 5 years imprisonment for criminal violations and civil liability of at least $10,000 in statutory damages for unlawful interception.
Practical Tips for Smart Glasses Users in Michigan
Understand your role before you record audio. The participant exception in Michigan is narrow. If you are actively engaged in the conversation (the other person is speaking to you and you to them), you are a participant and may record. If you are holding the glasses to capture a conversation happening near you that does not involve you, you are a non-participant eavesdropper and the all-party consent requirement applies.
Keep the LED active. Meta's Ray-Ban AI glasses include a built-in capture LED near the right frame that illuminates whenever the camera is recording video, taking a photo, or streaming live. Michigan law does not currently mandate recording indicators for wearables, but deliberately obscuring the LED removes the one visible signal that recording is occurring, which directly strengthens evidence of non-consensual covert recording intent if a dispute arises.
Disclose before recording formal meetings. Even though the participant exception technically permits undisclosed recording of conversations you are part of, disclosing the recording at the outset of any formal meeting (an employment interview, business negotiation, or medical appointment) eliminates any ambiguity about consent and avoids the civil intrusion-upon-seclusion risk entirely.
Never record in private spaces. The prohibition under MCL 750.539d and MCL 750.539j on recording in private places is absolute. Remove the glasses before entering locker rooms, restrooms, changing rooms, or other spaces where people have a clear expectation of privacy from observation.
Facial recognition adds risk. Michigan has no biometric statute, but using smart glasses to identify strangers through facial recognition software exposes you to common-law tort liability and potentially to the laws of states where the identified person resides (especially Illinois, Texas, or Washington residents).
Driving caution. Michigan's distracted-driving laws focus on handheld electronic device use. Smart glasses are not handheld, and no Michigan statute as of June 2026 specifically addresses wearable display devices while driving. Navigation use is likely analogous to a mounted GPS. Using smart glasses for live streaming, social media interaction, or video calls while driving raises the same distracted-driving exposure as any electronic device distraction, and remains legally unsettled.
More Michigan Laws
Frequently Asked Questions
Is Michigan a one-party or two-party consent state for recording?
Michigan is technically all-party consent under the plain text of MCL 750.539c, but the Michigan Court of Appeals held in Sullivan v. Gray (1982) that a participant in a conversation may record it without the other parties' knowledge. In practice, Michigan is effectively one-party consent for participants and all-party consent for non-participants who are not part of the conversation.
Can I record a conversation with my smart glasses in Michigan without telling the other person?
If you are a genuine participant in the conversation (meaning the other person is speaking with you), yes, the participant exception from Sullivan v. Gray permits you to record without disclosure. If you are not a participant and are capturing someone else's private discussion, you need consent from all parties under MCL 750.539c.
What is Sullivan v. Gray and why does it matter for Michigan?
Sullivan v. Gray is a 1982 Michigan Court of Appeals decision that interpreted the phrase 'private discourse of others' in MCL 750.539a to exclude conversations that the recorder is a party to. The court held that a participant cannot be eavesdropping on the discourse of others because they are in the conversation themselves. This creates the participant exception that distinguishes Michigan from states with a pure all-party consent rule.
Can I secretly film someone with smart glasses in Michigan?
In public spaces, video-only recording is generally lawful. In private spaces such as restrooms, locker rooms, changing rooms, and private residences, recording is a felony under MCL 750.539d and MCL 750.539j. The covert appearance of smart glasses does not create any exception to these prohibitions.
What are the penalties for illegal recording in Michigan?
All of Michigan's recording and surveillance violations in the 750.539 series are felonies. Eavesdropping on a private conversation (MCL 750.539c) carries up to 2 years imprisonment and a $2,000 fine. Voyeurism recording or distribution (MCL 750.539j) carries up to 5 years and a $5,000 fine. Civil remedies under MCL 750.539h add potential liability for actual damages, punitive damages, and attorney fees.
Does Michigan have a biometric privacy law that applies to smart glasses?
No. Michigan has no dedicated biometric privacy statute comparable to Illinois BIPA, Texas CUBI, or Washington RCW 19.375. Using smart glasses with facial recognition in Michigan does not trigger a state biometric statute, though common-law privacy torts (intrusion upon seclusion) still apply, and you may face liability under the laws of the state where an identified person resides.
Are Meta Ray-Ban smart glasses legal in Michigan?
Yes, the device is legal to own and wear. The legality of use depends on what you record, where, and whether you are a participant in any conversation you capture. Meta's capture LED provides an external recording indicator, but Michigan law does not mandate its use, and deliberately covering it strengthens evidence of covert recording intent.
Can I record a police officer with smart glasses in Michigan?
Recording police officers performing their duties in a public space is generally protected under the First Amendment. As a participant in any encounter (a traffic stop or a street interaction), the Sullivan v. Gray participant exception would also permit audio recording. You cannot use the glasses to secretly record in private spaces, and you should not physically interfere with law enforcement activity during any recording.
The Law Behind This Article
This article rests on 8 statutory provisions held in our own legal record, each retrieved from the official source. Tap a section to read the operative text.
United States Code Title 18
§ 1801Video voyeurismIn forcecited in 79 of our articles
Whoever, in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, has the intent to capture an image of a private area of an individual without their consent, and knowingly does so under circumstances in which the individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both. In this section— the term “capture”, with respect to an image, means to videotape, photograph, film, record by any means, or broadcast; the term “broadcast” means to electronically transmit a visual image with the intent that it be viewed by a person or persons; the term “a private area of the individual” means the naked or undergarment clad genitals, pubic area, buttocks, or female breast of that individual; the term “female breast” means any portion of the female breast below the top of the areola; and the term “under circumstances in which that individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy” means— circumstances in which a reasonable person would believe that he or she could disrobe in privacy, without being concerned that an image of a private area of the individual was being captured; or circumstances in which a…
Official text (excerpt) · as of 2026-07-28 · Read the full section at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 53 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2026
Leading cases: United States v. Anthony Helton (Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit 2019, 944 F.3d 198) · United States v. Johnson (District Court, W.D. Missouri 2010, 719 F. Supp. 2d 1059) · Electronic Privacy Information Center v. United States Department of Homeland Security (Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit 2011, 653 F.3d 1)
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 2510DefinitionsIn forcecited in 120 of our articles
As used in this chapter— “wire communication” means any aural transfer made in whole or in part through the use of facilities for the transmission of communications by the aid of wire, cable, or other like connection between the point of origin and the point of reception (including the use of such connection in a switching station) furnished or operated by any person engaged in providing or operating such facilities for the transmission of interstate or foreign communications or communications affecting interstate or foreign commerce; “oral communication” means any oral communication uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that such communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such expectation, but such term does not include any electronic communication; “State” means any State of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and any territory or possession of the United States; “intercept” means the aural or other acquisition of the contents of any wire, electronic, or oral communication through the use of any electronic, mechanical, or other device.1 So in original. The period probably should be a semicolon.
Official text (excerpt) · as of 2026-07-28 · Read the full section at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 2,382 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2026
Leading cases: Forsyth v. Barr (Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit 1994, 19 F.3d 1527) · Nixon v. Administrator of General Services (Supreme Court of the United States 1977, 433 U.S. 425) · Gannett Co. v. DePasquale (Supreme Court of the United States 1979, 443 U.S. 368)
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 2511Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibitedIn forcecited in 397 of our articles
Except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter any person who— intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, any wire, oral, or electronic communication; intentionally uses, endeavors to use, or procures any other person to use or endeavor to use any electronic, mechanical, or other device to intercept any oral communication when— such device is affixed to, or otherwise transmits a signal through, a wire, cable, or other like connection used in wire communication; or such device transmits communications by radio, or interferes with the transmission of such communication; or such person knows, or has reason to know, that such device or any component thereof has been sent through the mail or transported in interstate or foreign commerce; or such use or endeavor to use (A) takes place on the premises of any business or other commercial establishment the operations of which affect interstate or foreign commerce; or (B) obtains or is for the purpose of obtaining information relating to the operations of any business or other commercial establishment the operations of which affect interstate or foreign…
Official text (excerpt) · as of 2026-08-12 · Read the full section at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 2,045 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2026
Leading cases: Mitchell v. Forsyth (Supreme Court of the United States 1985, 472 U.S. 511) · United States v. United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (Supreme Court of the United States 1972, 407 U.S. 297) · Forsyth v. Barr (Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit 1994, 19 F.3d 1527)
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Michigan Compiled Laws
§ 750.539aDefinitionsIn forcecited in 29 of our articles
As used in sections 539a to 539i: (1) "Private place" means a place where one may reasonably expect to be safe from casual or hostile intrusion or surveillance but does not include a place to which the public or substantial group of the public has access. (2) "Eavesdrop" or "eavesdropping" means to overhear, record, amplify or transmit any part of the private discourse of others without the permission of all persons engaged in the discourse. Neither this definition or any other provision of this act shall modify or affect any law or regulation concerning interception, divulgence or recording of messages transmitted by communications common carriers. (3) "Surveillance" means to secretly observe the activities of another person for the purpose of spying upon and invading the privacy of the person observed. (4) "Person" means any individual, partnership, corporation or association.
Official text (excerpt) · as of 2026-07-30 · Read the full section at legislature.mi.gov
Cited in 26 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2026
Leading cases: Lewis v. LeGrow (Michigan Court of Appeals 2003, 258 Mich. App. 175) · People v. Stone (Michigan Supreme Court 2001, 463 Mich. 558) · People v. Lucas (Michigan Court of Appeals 1991, 188 Mich. App. 554)
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 750.539cEavesdropping upon private conversationIn forcecited in 41 of our articles
Any person who is present or who is not present during a private conversation and who wilfully uses any device to eavesdrop upon the conversation without the consent of all parties thereto, or who knowingly aids, employs or procures another person to do the same in violation of this section, is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment in a state prison for not more than 2 years or by a fine of not more than $2,000.00, or both.
Official text (excerpt) · as of 2026-07-30 · Read the full section at legislature.mi.gov
Cited in 32 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2025
Leading cases: People v. Lucas (Michigan Court of Appeals 1991, 188 Mich. App. 554) · Sullivan v. Gray (Michigan Court of Appeals 1982, 117 Mich. App. 476) · People v. Warner (Michigan Supreme Court 1977, 401 Mich. 186)
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 750.539dInstallation, placement, or use of device for observing, recording, transmitting, photographing or eavesdropping in private placeIn forcecited in 30 of our articles
(1) Except as otherwise provided in this section, a person shall not do either of the following: (a) Install, place, or use in any private place, without the consent of the person or persons entitled to privacy in that place, any device for observing, recording, transmitting, photographing, or eavesdropping upon the sounds or events in that place. (b) Distribute, disseminate, or transmit for access by any other person a recording, photograph, or visual image the person knows or has reason to know was obtained in violation of this section. (2) This section does not prohibit security monitoring in a residence if conducted by or at the direction of the owner or principal occupant of that residence unless conducted for a lewd or lascivious purpose. (3) A person who violates or attempts to violate this section is guilty of a crime as follows: (a) For a violation or attempted violation of subsection (1)(a): (i) Except as provided in subparagraph (ii), the person is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 2 years or a fine of not more than $2,000.00, or both.
Official text (excerpt) · as of 2026-07-30 · Read the full section at legislature.mi.gov
Cited in 24 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2026
Leading cases: Lewis v. LeGrow (Michigan Court of Appeals 2003, 258 Mich. App. 175) · People v. Wilkens (Michigan Court of Appeals 2005, 267 Mich. App. 728) · People v. Waltonen (Michigan Court of Appeals 2007, 272 Mich. App. 678)
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 750.539hCivil remediesIn forcecited in 22 of our articles
Any parties to any conversation upon which eavesdropping is practiced contrary to this act shall be entitled to the following civil remedies: (a) An injunction by a court of record prohibiting further eavesdropping. (b) All actual damages against the person who eavesdrops. (c) Punitive damages as determined by the court or by a jury.
Official text (excerpt) · as of 2026-07-30 · Read the full section at legislature.mi.gov
Cited in 13 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2026
Leading cases: McAuley v. General Motors Corp. (Michigan Supreme Court 1998, 457 Mich. 513) · Eide v. Kelsey-Hayes Co. (Michigan Supreme Court 1988, 431 Mich. 26) · Anzaldua v. Band (Michigan Supreme Court 1998, 457 Mich. 530)
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 750.539jSurveillance of or distribution, dissemination, or transmission of recording, photograph, or visual image of individual having reasonable expectation of privacy; prohibited conduct; violation as felony; penalty; exceptions; "surveil" definedIn forcecited in 19 of our articles
(1) A person shall not do any of the following: (a) Surveil another individual who is clad only in his or her undergarments, the unclad genitalia or buttocks of another individual, or the unclad breasts of a female individual under circumstances in which the individual would have a reasonable expectation of privacy. (b) Photograph, or otherwise capture or record, the visual image of the undergarments worn by another individual, the unclad genitalia or buttocks of another individual, or the unclad breasts of a female individual under circumstances in which the individual would have a reasonable expectation of privacy. (c) Distribute, disseminate, or transmit for access by any other person a recording, photograph, or visual image the person knows or has reason to know was obtained in violation of this section. (2) A person who violates or attempts to violate this section is guilty of a crime as follows: (a) For a violation or attempted violation of subsection (1)(a): (i) Except as provided in subparagraph (ii), the person is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 2 years or a fine of not more than $2,000.00, or both.
Official text (excerpt) · as of 2026-07-30 · Read the full section at legislature.mi.gov
Cited in 17 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2026
Leading cases: In Re L-S Morehead Minor (Michigan Court of Appeals 2026) · In Re K N Klemkow Minor (Michigan Court of Appeals 2024) · People of Michigan v. Cora Ladane Lymon (Michigan Supreme Court 2024)
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Search our full record of US law — 2.1 million sections, every state + federal →
Sources and References
- MCL 750.539a: Definitions. 'eavesdrop' defined as overhearing, recording, amplifying, or transmitting 'any part of the private discourse of others without the permission of all persons engaged in the discourse.' Source of the 'others' language that underlies Sullivan v. Gray.(legislature.mi.gov).gov
- MCL 750.539c: Eavesdropping upon private conversations. Prohibits using any device to record the private discourse of others without all-party consent. Felony: up to 2 years imprisonment and $2,000 fine.(legislature.mi.gov).gov
- MCL 750.539d: Installing or using a device in a private place. Prohibits recording or surveilling persons in private places without consent. First offense: up to 2 years/$2,000. Subsequent: up to 5 years/$5,000.(legislature.mi.gov).gov
- MCL 750.539h: Civil remedies for violations of MCL 750.539a through 750.539j. Permits recovery of actual damages, punitive damages, and attorney fees.(legislature.mi.gov).gov
- MCL 750.539j: Voyeurism and unlawful surveillance. Prohibits recording partially or fully unclad persons, recording intimate areas, and distributing such recordings where a reasonable expectation of privacy exists. Up to 5 years/$5,000 fine for recording and distribution offenses.(legislature.mi.gov).gov
- 18 U.S.C. § 2511: Federal Wiretap Act. One-party consent exception at § 2511(2)(d); criminal penalty up to 5 years; civil liability of at least $10,000 per violation.(law.cornell.edu)
- 18 U.S.C. § 2510(2): Definition of 'oral communication' as an aural transfer containing the human voice under circumstances justifying a reasonable expectation against interception. Basis for the rule that silent video-only recording is not a Wiretap Act violation.(law.cornell.edu)
- 18 U.S.C. § 1801: Federal Video Voyeurism Prevention Act. Prohibits recording private areas of individuals on federal property without consent.(law.cornell.edu)
- Meta Ray-Ban AI Glasses official privacy page. Documents the capture LED notification system, Meta's guidance that users should let the LED shine and stop recording if asked, and Meta's instruction to obey applicable law.(meta.com)