Minnesota Smart Glasses Recording Laws 2025

Yes, smart glasses are legal to own and wear in Minnesota, and the state's one-party consent rule means you can record audio of any conversation you are participating in without notifying the other party. Video recording in public spaces is generally lawful. The legal lines are drawn at covert recording in private spaces and at capturing intimate images without consent.

Are Smart Glasses Legal to Own and Wear in Minnesota?

Yes. Minnesota 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 Minnesota or federal law.

The legal analysis begins only when the glasses are used to capture audio or video. At that point, the relevant questions are: What is being captured? Where is the recording taking place? Are you a participant in any conversation being recorded?

Smart glasses capture both video and audio simultaneously, which is what makes them legally complex. Video and audio recording are governed by separate legal frameworks. Video in a public space is generally lawful. Audio capture of a spoken conversation triggers Minnesota's Privacy of Communications Act and federal wiretap law. Understanding both is essential before using smart glasses to record.

Recording Video in Public vs. Private Spaces

Public spaces

Recording video in a public space is lawful in Minnesota under both state and federal law. When a person is in a publicly accessible location, such as a street, a park, a retail store, or a government building, they have a diminished reasonable expectation of privacy from being seen or filmed.

The federal Wiretap Act defines an "oral communication" as an aural transfer containing the human voice under circumstances justifying a reasonable expectation of privacy against interception. Minnesota's parallel definition in Minn. Stat. 626A.01 tracks this same language: an "oral communication" is one "uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that such communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such expectation." Silent video capture in a public space does not satisfy either definition. The recording statutes address the interception of spoken communications, not video observation in public.

This means smart glasses worn while walking on a Minneapolis sidewalk, at the State Fair, at a sporting event at US Bank Stadium, or in a public government building generally do not create legal exposure from video capture alone.

Semi-public and private spaces

The analysis shifts in semi-public or private spaces. A private home, a hotel room, a medical examination room, or a closed-door meeting space carries a strong reasonable expectation of privacy. Even spaces that are technically accessible to others, such as a restaurant booth during a quiet conversation or a workplace conference room, can give rise to a reasonable expectation of privacy in the content of words spoken there.

Under Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967), the constitutional framework requires both a subjective expectation of privacy and one that society recognizes as objectively reasonable. Minnesota courts apply this framework when determining whether a space or conversation is "private" for purposes of the interference-with-privacy statutes.

Recording inside private places

Using smart glasses to secretly video-record someone inside a private location, such as a home, a hotel room, or a medical office, can violate Minn. Stat. 609.746 (interference with privacy) even before the specific intimate-image prohibitions become relevant. The key principle is that covert video recording in a space where a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy from visual observation is treated as a serious criminal matter under Minnesota law, not a technical compliance issue.

Recording Audio and Minnesota's One-Party Consent Rule

This is the central legal issue for smart glasses users in Minnesota, and Minnesota law is clear and relatively protective of participant recording.

The statute

Minnesota's Privacy of Communications Act is codified at Minn. Stat. Chapter 626A. The core prohibition is at Minn. Stat. 626A.02, subdivision 1, which makes it unlawful to intentionally intercept any wire, electronic, or oral communication.

The one-party consent exception is at Minn. Stat. 626A.02, subdivision 2(d):

It is not unlawful under this chapter for a person not acting under color of law to intercept a wire, electronic, or oral communication where such person is a party to the communication or where one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to such interception, unless such communication is intercepted for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act.

This is the operative provision for smart glasses users. If you are a participant in the conversation you are recording, the recording is lawful under Minnesota law. The other party's consent is not required, and you have no disclosure obligation.

What one-party consent means for smart glasses

For a smart glasses wearer in Minnesota, the one-party rule means:

• Recording a conversation you are having with someone at a coffee shop, in a business meeting, during a personal exchange, or at a job interview is lawful. You are a participant. Minnesota law does not require you to disclose the recording to the other party.
• Recording your own interactions with police officers in a public encounter is lawful under the same principle. You are a party to the exchange.
• Recording a private conversation between two other people that you are not part of requires the consent of at least one party. Secretly capturing someone else's discussion when you are not participating violates Minn. Stat. 626A.02.

The term "oral communication" in Minnesota law carries a built-in qualifier: it applies only to communications in which the speaker "exhibits an expectation that such communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such expectation." A loud conversation on a crowded downtown Minneapolis street likely does not meet this threshold. A quiet conversation in a private room plainly does. Smart glasses wearers in semi-public spaces should analyze whether the conversation has the character of a private communication before relying on the one-party rule.

Federal alignment

The federal Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(d)) provides the same one-party consent baseline that Minnesota mirrors. Minnesota's rule is at least as permissive as the federal minimum, so there is no conflict between state and federal law for a Minnesota participant recording their own conversations. A participant recording their own conversations is lawful under both frameworks.

For a full analysis of Minnesota's consent framework, see the Minnesota Recording Laws page.

Where You Cannot Record: Surreptitious Observation and Privacy Violations

Regardless of the consent rules, Minnesota law absolutely prohibits recording in locations where a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy from visual observation of their body or intimate conduct. The one-party consent rule does not override these prohibitions.

Minn. Stat. 609.746: Interference with privacy

Minn. Stat. 609.746 is Minnesota's primary statute governing surreptitious observation and recording. It covers several distinct categories of prohibited conduct:

Dwelling observation. A person commits a gross misdemeanor by surreptitiously gazing, staring, or peeping into a window or aperture of a house or other structure with intent to intrude upon or interfere with the privacy of an occupant.

Device-based observation. A gross misdemeanor for installing or using any device to observe, photograph, record, amplify, or broadcast the occupants of any dwelling place without the occupants' consent.

Hotel and intimate-space observation. A gross misdemeanor for peeping or recording through a window of a hotel sleeping room, tanning booth, or any other place where a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy and where intimate parts are or are likely to be exposed.

Recording intimate images in private settings. A gross misdemeanor for using a device to photograph, record, or observe the intimate body parts of another person, without consent, in a location where the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy, including homes, hotel rooms, bathrooms, locker rooms, and dressing areas.

Upskirt recording. A misdemeanor on a first offense (up to 90 days in jail and a $1,000 fine) for surreptitiously observing or recording under or around a person's clothing to capture intimate body parts with intent to intrude upon or interfere with the person's privacy. A repeat violation, or a first violation against a minor under 18, is a gross misdemeanor. A violation after two or more prior convictions under this subdivision is a felony.

Penalty escalation

The base offense for the dwelling, hotel, and intimate-image observation provisions (paragraphs (a) through (e)) is a gross misdemeanor. That offense escalates to a felony with a maximum of two years imprisonment and up to a $5,000 fine when the defendant has a prior qualifying conviction or when the victim is a minor under 18. When the victim is under 18, the defendant is 36 or more months older than the victim, and the offense is committed with sexual intent, the maximum penalty increases to four years imprisonment and up to a $5,000 fine. The upskirt-recording provision (paragraph (f)) has its own, lower base tier: a misdemeanor on a first offense, escalating to a gross misdemeanor on a repeat violation or a minor victim, and to a felony after two or more prior convictions under this subdivision.

Locations where recording is always prohibited

The locations where this law applies most clearly include:

• Restrooms and public bathrooms
• Locker rooms and gym changing areas
• Fitting rooms in retail stores
• Private residences
• Hotel rooms and other temporary private lodgings
• Medical examination and treatment rooms
• Tanning booths

The covert appearance of smart glasses, which look exactly like ordinary eyewear to bystanders, does not create any exception to these prohibitions. The concealed nature of the recording can in fact worsen legal exposure because it demonstrates deliberate concealment in a space where the prohibition is absolute.

Federal law adds a parallel floor: 18 U.S.C. 1801, the Video Voyeurism Prevention Act, separately prohibits recording a person's private areas on federal property without consent where the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy.

The rule is absolute: no location in Minnesota, and no consent from any third party other than the person depicted in their intimate area, can legalize recording someone's private body in a space where they reasonably expect not to be observed.

Facial Recognition and Biometric Privacy in Minnesota

Minnesota does not have a standalone biometric privacy statute equivalent to Illinois's Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) or Texas's Capture or Use of Biometric Identifier Act (CUBI). This means there is no Minnesota-specific statutory damages framework for capturing face geometry without consent.

However, the absence of a dedicated statute does not mean smart-glasses facial recognition is risk-free in Minnesota.

Common-law privacy torts

Minnesota courts recognize the common-law privacy torts set out in the Restatement (Second) of Torts. Under Restatement 652B, a person who intentionally intrudes upon the solitude or seclusion of another is liable for invasion of privacy if the intrusion would be "highly offensive to a reasonable person." The critical point is that actual publication of the footage is not required. The act of covert recording or covert identification can itself create civil liability.

A Minnesota smart glasses user who integrates facial-recognition software to identify strangers faces common-law intrusion-upon-seclusion exposure under this doctrine, regardless of whether any state biometric statute technically applies.

The I-XRAY risk

In October 2024, Harvard students demonstrated "I-XRAY": a system combining Meta Ray-Ban smart glasses with PimEyes, a reverse facial-recognition search engine, and AI to identify strangers in real time and retrieve home addresses and partial Social Security numbers within minutes of capturing a face. The system used third-party software, not Meta's own features, but it demonstrated that the camera hardware in consumer smart glasses is sufficient to enable real-time covert identification of individuals on a Minneapolis street or in a shopping mall.

A Minnesota user who replicates this integration would face civil intrusion-upon-seclusion liability. If any identified person is a resident of Illinois, the user would also face exposure under Illinois BIPA, which carries statutory damages of $1,000 to $5,000 per person for capturing face geometry without written consent.

The three biometric states

Illinois (BIPA, 740 ILCS 14), Texas (CUBI, Tex. Bus. & Com. Code 503.001), and Washington (RCW Chapter 19.375) are the three states with dedicated biometric laws most relevant to smart-glasses facial recognition. If you use your Minnesota-purchased smart glasses in Illinois, you are immediately subject to BIPA's requirements. If you scan faces in Texas for a commercial purpose without prior notice and consent, the Texas Attorney General can seek up to $25,000 per violation under CUBI. Minnesota residents who travel to these states with smart glasses should be aware that their home state's more permissive framework does not follow them.

Penalties Summary

Minnesota's penalties for unlawful recording and observation reflect the seriousness of communications privacy violations.

At the federal level, the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. 2511) imposes up to five years imprisonment for criminal violations and civil liability of at least $10,000 in statutory damages per unlawful interception. The federal floor applies to any Minnesota recording that also violates federal law.

Minnesota also recognizes civil intrusion-upon-seclusion claims under state tort law. Covert recording in a semi-private context, recording in a private space, or using smart glasses to identify individuals without their knowledge can all support a civil claim regardless of whether criminal charges are filed.

Practical Tips for Smart Glasses Users in Minnesota

You can record your own conversations. Minnesota's one-party consent rule means that as long as you are a genuine participant in the conversation, you may record it without disclosing that you are doing so. You do not need the other person's agreement, and there is no disclosure requirement under Minn. Stat. 626A.02, subd. 2(d).

Keep the capture LED visible. Meta's Ray-Ban AI glasses include a built-in white LED near the right frame that illuminates whenever the camera is actively recording video, taking a photo, or streaming live. Minnesota law does not currently mandate a recording indicator for wearable devices, but deliberately covering or obscuring the LED removes the only external signal that recording is occurring. Covering the LED can be used as evidence of intentional concealment in any legal dispute over covert recording.

Disclose before recording formal meetings. Even though Minnesota law permits undisclosed recording by a participant, disclosing the recording at the outset of any formal or sensitive meeting, such as a business negotiation, employment interview, or medical appointment, eliminates all ambiguity and avoids civil intrusion-upon-seclusion risk entirely.

Never record in private spaces. The prohibitions under Minn. Stat. 609.746 on recording in private locations, including restrooms, locker rooms, hotel rooms, and anywhere intimate parts are or may be exposed, are absolute. Remove the glasses or stop recording before entering any such space.

Do not record others' conversations. Minnesota's one-party rule protects participants, not bystanders. If two other people are having a private conversation that does not involve you, you cannot lawfully record it without at least one party's consent. The penalty for violating Minn. Stat. 626A.02 is up to five years imprisonment and a $20,000 fine.

Facial recognition adds civil risk. Minnesota has no standalone biometric statute, but using smart glasses to identify strangers through a facial-recognition application exposes you to common-law intrusion-upon-seclusion liability. If any identified person resides in Illinois, Texas, or Washington, you may also face liability under those states' biometric statutes, which can apply wherever the data is collected.

Driving. Minnesota's distracted driving law (Minn. Stat. 169.475) restricts the use of wireless communication devices while driving. Smart glasses are not a handheld device in the traditional sense, and no Minnesota statute as of June 2026 specifically addresses wearable display devices while driving. Navigation use through smart glasses is likely analogous to a mounted GPS device. Using smart glasses for live streaming, social media interaction, or video calls while driving raises the same distracted-driving concerns as any electronic device use, and remains legally unsettled under current Minnesota law.

More Minnesota Laws

• Minnesota Data Privacy Laws
• Minnesota Deepfake Laws
• Minnesota Drone Laws
• Minnesota Recording Laws