Texas
Texas Smart Glasses Recording Laws (2026)
Independently fact-checked against primary sources (last audited August 24, 2026). · Reviewed by the RecordingLaw editorial team. · Law checked current as of August 24, 2026. · 5 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content
Yes, smart glasses are legal to own and wear in Texas, 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. Texas also has a dedicated biometric privacy law that creates separate obligations when smart glasses are used with facial-recognition software.
Are Smart Glasses Legal to Own and Wear in Texas?
Yes. Texas 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 Texas or federal law.
The legal analysis begins only when the glasses are used to capture audio, video, or biometric data. At that point, three separate bodies of Texas law become relevant: the Penal Code wiretap statute, the invasive visual recording statute, and the biometric privacy law under the Business and Commerce Code. Each addresses a different dimension of what smart glasses can capture.
Recording Video in Public vs. Private Spaces
Public spaces
Recording video in a public space is lawful in Texas under both state and federal law. When a person is in a publicly accessible location, such as a street, sidewalk, park, retail store, or government building, they have a diminished reasonable expectation of privacy from being seen or filmed.
The federal Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2510(18)) reaches only "aural transfers" that contain the human voice. Silent video capture in a public space does not meet that definition. Texas's own Penal Code § 16.02 targets the interception of wire, oral, and electronic communications. Video-only recording in public, with no audio capture of a private conversation, falls outside its scope.
This means smart glasses worn while walking on a Houston sidewalk, at a state fair, in a public park, or in an open 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 settings. A private home, a hotel room, a medical examination room, or a closed-door office space carries a strong reasonable expectation of privacy. Even settings that are technically accessible to the public, such as a restaurant booth during a quiet conversation or an office break room, can give rise to a reasonable expectation of privacy in the content of the words spoken there.
Under Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967) (Harlan, J., concurring), the constitutional framework requires both a subjective expectation of privacy and one that society recognizes as objectively reasonable. Texas courts apply this framework when determining whether a space or conversation is private for purposes of the eavesdropping and invasive visual recording statutes.
Recording inside private places
Using smart glasses to covertly video-record someone inside a private location creates criminal exposure under Texas Penal Code § 21.15 (Invasive Visual Recording) even before questions of audio consent arise. The key principle is that covert video recording in a space where a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy from visual observation of their body or intimate conduct is a serious crime under Texas law, not a technical compliance issue.
Recording Audio and Texas's One-Party Consent Rule
This is the central legal question for smart glasses users in Texas, and Texas law is clear.
The statute
Tex. Penal Code § 16.02 (Unlawful Interception, Use, or Disclosure of Wire, Oral, or Electronic Communications) is Texas's primary wiretap and eavesdropping statute. It prohibits intentionally intercepting a wire, oral, or electronic communication unless an exception applies.
The one-party consent rule is built directly into § 16.02 as an affirmative defense to prosecution: a person not acting under color of law has a defense if they are a party to the communication, or if one of the parties gave prior consent to the interception. The prior-consent route does not apply if the communication is intercepted for the purpose of committing an unlawful act.
A smart glasses wearer who is an active participant in the conversation they are recording satisfies this exception. The other party's consent is not required.
Penalty for violations
Unlawful interception under § 16.02 is a second-degree felony, punishable by two to twenty years in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice and a fine of up to $10,000. This is a more serious criminal classification than the wiretap statutes in most other one-party consent states. Two narrower offenses in the same section are state-jail felonies, carrying 180 days to two years of confinement and a fine of up to $10,000: manufacturing, possessing, selling, or advertising an interception device, and obstructing or tipping off the target of an authorized law-enforcement interception.
Victims of unlawful interception also have a civil remedy under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 123.002: minimum statutory damages of $10,000 per occurrence, plus actual damages, punitive damages, and attorney fees.
What one-party consent means for smart glasses
For a smart glasses wearer in Texas, the one-party rule means:
- Recording a conversation you are having with someone at a restaurant, during a business meeting, at a job site, or in any other setting is lawful. You are a participant. Texas law does not require you to disclose the recording.
- Recording your own interactions with police officers during a public encounter such as a traffic stop 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 § 16.02 and is a second-degree felony.
Federal alignment
The federal Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d)) provides the same one-party consent baseline. Texas's rule is at least as permissive as the federal minimum, so there is no conflict: a Texas participant can record their own conversations lawfully under both state and federal law.
For a full analysis of Texas's consent framework, see the Texas Recording Laws page.
Where You Cannot Record: Invasive Visual Recording
Regardless of the audio consent rules, Texas law absolutely prohibits recording in locations where a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy from visual observation of their body or intimate conduct. One-party consent does not override this prohibition.
Tex. Penal Code § 21.15: Invasive Visual Recording
Tex. Penal Code § 21.15 prohibits intentionally photographing or by electronic means recording, broadcasting, or transmitting a visual image of another person in a bathroom or changing room, or of another person's intimate areas, without consent and with intent to invade the person's privacy.
A 2025 amendment, effective September 1, 2025, significantly expanded the statute's reach. The location element now extends beyond bathrooms and changing rooms to cover any place in which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy. The statute defines that place as one where a reasonable person would believe they could disrobe in privacy, and it includes a bathroom, bedroom, and changing room. Recording any visual image of a person in such a place without consent and with intent to invade their privacy is an offense, whether or not intimate areas are captured. A separate prong covers recording a person's intimate areas wherever they reasonably expect those areas are not subject to public view.
The penalty is a state-jail felony, carrying 180 days to two years of confinement in a state-jail facility and a fine of up to $10,000. Since September 1, 2025, conviction also triggers mandatory sex-offender registration in Texas.
The 2014 Ex parte Thompson history
Prior to the current statute, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals in Ex parte Thompson, 442 S.W.3d 325 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014), struck down the earlier version of the improper photography statute, Tex. Penal Code § 21.15 (2007), as an unconstitutional restriction on protected speech because it applied to any non-consensual photograph or visual recording of a person who was not in a bathroom or private dressing room, occurring anywhere (including in public), as long as it was made with intent to arouse or gratify sexual desire, and it contained no language addressing privacy. The Legislature responded by restructuring the statute to focus on intimate areas and private contexts, which passed constitutional scrutiny. The current § 21.15 as amended is the version in force and was upheld by subsequent courts. The 2014 case is historical background, not a current defense.
Locations where recording is always prohibited
The core prohibited locations include:
- Restrooms and public bathrooms
- Locker rooms and gym changing areas
- Fitting rooms in retail stores
- Private residences, including through windows
- Hotel rooms and other temporary private lodgings
- Medical examination and treatment rooms
The covert appearance of smart glasses, which look exactly like ordinary eyewear to bystanders, does not create any exception to these prohibitions. The hidden nature of the recording can aggravate the offense by demonstrating deliberate concealment of non-consensual intent.
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 they have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Facial Recognition and Texas Biometric Privacy Law (CUBI)
Texas has one of the few dedicated biometric privacy statutes in the United States. It is directly relevant to any smart glasses wearer who uses a facial-recognition application in Texas.
The Texas CUBI statute
The Texas Capture or Use of Biometric Identifier Act (CUBI), codified at Tex. Bus. & Com. Code §§ 503.001 through 503.004, governs the commercial collection and use of biometric identifiers.
Section 503.001 defines "biometric identifier" as a retina or iris scan, fingerprint, voiceprint, or record of hand or face geometry. Face geometry, meaning the spatial mapping of facial features used for identification, falls squarely within this definition.
Section 503.002 establishes the core prohibition: a person may not capture a biometric identifier of another individual for a commercial purpose unless the person (1) informs the individual before capturing the identifier, and (2) receives the individual's consent to the capture.
How CUBI applies to smart glasses
When a smart glasses wearer uses a facial-recognition application, such as the type demonstrated in the Harvard I-XRAY project in October 2024, to identify a person by scanning their face, CUBI is implicated immediately if that scanning occurs for a commercial purpose. A commercial purpose is broadly interpreted to mean any activity conducted for trade or business.
In practice, this means:
- A business or developer that deploys facial recognition on smart glasses to identify customers, track store visitors, or match faces to a database without prior notice and consent is in direct violation of CUBI.
- An individual who uses a third-party facial-recognition app commercially, or who collects face geometry data in connection with any business activity, is equally covered.
- Personal, non-commercial use of facial recognition, such as identifying your own friends in a private social setting with their knowledge, may fall outside CUBI's commercial-purpose requirement, but civil tort law (intrusion upon seclusion) still applies to non-consensual scanning.
Enforcement and penalties
Unlike Illinois BIPA, which grants individuals a private right of action, CUBI is enforced exclusively by the Texas Attorney General. There is no private lawsuit available to individuals whose biometric data was captured without consent.
The AG may bring a civil enforcement action and seek a penalty of up to $25,000 per violation. Each individual whose biometric identifier is captured without consent and required notice can constitute a separate violation. In a scenario where smart glasses scan the faces of 100 people in a public space without notice, the potential statutory exposure reaches $2.5 million.
The Texas AG's office has confirmed on its consumer protection pages that the Biometric Identifier Act applies to commercial face geometry scanning.
The I-XRAY demonstration
In October 2024, Harvard students AnhPhu Nguyen and Caine Ardayfio demonstrated "I-XRAY": a system integrating Meta Ray-Ban AI glasses with PimEyes, a reverse facial-recognition search engine, and AI to identify strangers in real time, extracting names, home addresses, and partial Social Security numbers within minutes of capturing a face on a public street. The demonstration used third-party software; Meta did not provide the facial-recognition capability.
The demonstration directly illustrates the CUBI risk in Texas. A person who replicates this type of integration for any commercial purpose without providing notice and obtaining consent from each scanned individual violates Tex. Bus. & Com. Code § 503.002 and faces up to $25,000 per person in AG-imposed penalties.
No private right of action
Texas's enforcement model is materially different from Illinois BIPA. In Illinois, a single biometric capture without consent can give rise to a private lawsuit with $1,000 to $5,000 in per-person statutory damages. In Texas, only the AG can sue. Individual victims cannot bring their own CUBI claims. However, a victim can file a complaint with the Texas Attorney General's Consumer Protection Division to trigger an enforcement review, and civil intrusion-upon-seclusion tort claims under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652B remain available as a parallel common-law remedy in Texas courts.
Texas CUBI compared to Illinois BIPA and Washington RCW 19.375
The three states with dedicated biometric privacy laws applicable to smart glasses facial recognition are Texas (CUBI), Illinois (BIPA, 740 ILCS 14), and Washington (RCW Chapter 19.375). Texas occupies the middle ground: stronger per-violation penalties than Washington (which lacks a dollar penalty ceiling and relies on the Consumer Protection Act), but weaker enforcement than Illinois (which allows private class-action litigation). If you use Texas-purchased smart glasses in Illinois, BIPA's requirements apply immediately.
Penalties Summary
| Offense | Statute | Classification | Maximum Penalty |
|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful interception (non-participant) | Tex. Penal Code § 16.02 | Second-degree felony | 2-20 years / $10,000 fine |
| Interception-device offenses / obstructing an authorized interception | Tex. Penal Code § 16.02(d), (g) | State-jail felony | 180 days-2 years / $10,000 fine |
| Civil damages for unlawful interception | Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 123.002 | Civil remedy | $10,000 minimum per occurrence + punitive |
| Invasive visual recording | Tex. Penal Code § 21.15 | State-jail felony | 180 days-2 years / $10,000 fine + sex-offender registration |
| Biometric capture without consent (commercial) | Tex. Bus. & Com. Code § 503.002 | Civil / AG-enforced | Up to $25,000 per violation |
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 Texas recording that also violates federal law.
Practical Tips for Smart Glasses Users in Texas
You can record your own conversations. Texas's one-party 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 violations by non-participants are treated as second-degree felonies.
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. Texas law does not currently mandate a recording indicator for wearable devices, but deliberately covering or obscuring the LED removes the one external signal that recording is occurring. Covering the LED can be used as evidence of intentional concealment in any legal dispute.
Disclose before recording formal or sensitive meetings. Even though Texas law permits undisclosed recording by a participant, disclosing the recording at the outset of any formal business meeting, employment interview, or medical appointment eliminates any ambiguity and avoids civil intrusion-upon-seclusion risk entirely.
Disable facial recognition for commercial use. If you are using smart glasses for any business purpose, do not enable a facial-recognition application without a clear consent and notice mechanism. CUBI penalties of up to $25,000 per person are AG-enforced and apply even if no individual sues you. Personal, non-commercial social use with consenting friends carries less statutory risk, but common-law privacy torts still apply to non-consensual scanning.
Never record in private spaces. The prohibitions under Tex. Penal Code § 21.15 on recording intimate areas in private locations, or in any location where a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy, are absolute. Remove the glasses before entering locker rooms, restrooms, fitting rooms, and similar spaces. Conviction is a state-jail felony and now triggers mandatory sex-offender registration.
Do not record others' conversations. Texas's one-party rule protects participants, not bystanders. If two other people are having a private conversation that does not involve you, recording it without at least one party's consent is a second-degree felony under § 16.02.
Driving. No Texas statute specifically addresses wearing smart glasses while driving. Texas's distracted-driving law (Tex. Transp. Code § 545.4251) prohibits using a portable wireless communication device to read, write, or send an electronic message while driving. Smart glasses are not handheld, and navigation use through smart glasses is likely analogous to a mounted GPS device. Using smart glasses for live streaming, social media interaction, or messaging while operating a vehicle raises the same distracted-driving exposure as any electronic device use, and remains legally unsettled under current Texas law.
More Texas Laws
Frequently Asked Questions
Is Texas a one-party or two-party consent state for recording?
Texas is a one-party consent state. Under Tex. Penal Code § 16.02, a participant in a conversation may record it without notifying the other party. Recording a conversation you are not part of without at least one party's consent is a second-degree felony, punishable by two to twenty years in prison and a fine of up to $10,000.
Can I record a conversation with my smart glasses in Texas without telling the other person?
Yes, if you are a genuine participant in the conversation. Texas's one-party consent rule under Penal Code § 16.02 means you do not need to disclose the recording or obtain the other person's agreement. The condition is that you are actually participating in the conversation being recorded.
What is Texas CUBI and how does it affect smart glasses?
CUBI, the Texas Capture or Use of Biometric Identifier Act (Tex. Bus. & Com. Code §§ 503.001-503.004), prohibits capturing a biometric identifier, including face geometry, for a commercial purpose without first informing the individual and receiving their consent. Using facial-recognition software with smart glasses for commercial identification without notice and consent violates CUBI. The Texas Attorney General can impose up to $25,000 per violation; there is no private right of action.
Can I use facial recognition with my smart glasses in Texas?
For personal, non-commercial use with consenting friends, CUBI may not apply. For any commercial purpose, capturing face geometry without prior notice and consent violates CUBI, and the Texas AG can seek up to $25,000 per person whose biometric identifier was captured. Common-law intrusion-upon-seclusion tort claims (Restatement § 652B) apply to any non-consensual scanning regardless of commercial intent.
What are the penalties for illegal recording in Texas?
Unlawful interception by a non-participant under Tex. Penal Code § 16.02 is a second-degree felony: two to twenty years in prison and up to a $10,000 fine. Victims also have a separate civil remedy under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 123.002 of at least $10,000 in statutory damages per occurrence plus punitive damages. Invasive visual recording under § 21.15 is a state-jail felony (180 days to 2 years, up to $10,000 fine) with mandatory sex-offender registration since September 1, 2025.
What was Ex parte Thompson and does it affect smart glasses recording today?
In Ex parte Thompson (2014), the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals struck down an earlier version of the improper photography statute as an unconstitutional speech restriction because it applied to any non-consensual photograph or recording made with intent to arouse or gratify sexual desire, occurring anywhere (including in public), and contained no language addressing privacy. The Legislature rewrote the law to focus on intimate areas and reasonable-expectation-of-privacy spaces. The current Tex. Penal Code § 21.15, as amended and effective through the 2025 expansion, is the operative statute. The 2014 case does not provide a defense to the current law.
Are Meta Ray-Ban smart glasses legal in Texas?
Yes, the device is legal to own and wear in Texas. The legality of use depends on what you record, where, and whether you are a participant in any conversation you capture. Enabling facial-recognition software for commercial purposes without consent also implicates Texas CUBI. Meta's capture LED provides external notice of recording, and deliberately covering it can be used as evidence of covert recording intent.
Can I record a police officer with smart glasses in Texas?
Yes. Recording police officers performing their duties in a public space is generally protected under the First Amendment. As a participant in any encounter such as a traffic stop or street interaction, Texas's one-party consent rule also permits audio recording without disclosure. You cannot secretly record in private spaces, and you should not physically interfere with law enforcement activity while recording.
Does covering the recording LED on my smart glasses create legal problems in Texas?
Covering the LED is not itself a Texas crime under current law, but it removes the only external signal that recording is occurring. In any legal dispute over covert recording, evidence that you deliberately covered the indicator light can be used to establish non-consensual recording intent. California SB 1130 would have criminalized LED cover-up in that state, but the Governor vetoed it on September 30, 2026, so it never became law; Texas has no equivalent bill as of late 2026.
Updates
Corrected the description of Ex parte Thompson to the statutory elements the court actually found overbroad, and attributed the two-part Katz privacy test to Justice Harlan’s concurrence.
Corrected our description of Texas's wiretap statute (the state-jail-felony variants cover interception devices and obstructing an authorized interception, not pen registers, and the one-party rule is an affirmative defense limited by an unlawful-purpose exception) and clarified that the invasive visual recording law covers any image of a person in a place where they could disrobe in privacy.
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes
Reviewed and approved by an editor
The Law Behind This Article
This article rests on the statutory provisions below, held in our own legal record and retrieved from the official source. Tap a section to read the operative text.
Texas Penal Code
§ 16.02UNLAWFUL INTERCEPTION, USE, OR DISCLOSURE OF WIRE, ORAL, OR ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONSIn forcecited in 17 of our articles
(a) In this section: (1) "Communication common carrier," "computer trespasser," "contents," "covert entry," "electronic communication," "intercept," "interception device," "investigative or law enforcement officer," "oral communication," "protected computer," and "wire communication" have the meanings assigned by Article 18A.001, Code of Criminal Procedure. (2) "Immediate life-threatening situation" and "member of a law enforcement unit specially trained to respond to and deal with life-threatening situations" have the meanings assigned by Article 18A.201, Code of Criminal Procedure.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-24 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at statutes.capitol.texas.gov
Cited in 39 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Texas courts have applied Section 16.02 to contested recordings. Long v. State (2017) held the oral communication definition carries a reasonable expectation of privacy test, sustaining a conviction over a covert locker room recording. Banargent v. State (2007) held a jail inmate impliedly consented, so no Section 16.02 violation.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Banargent v. State (Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston) 2007, 228 S.W.3d 393)✓Jail phone prompts and posted notices warned that calls could be recorded, and a recorded call captured the defendant admitting he stabbed the victim; the court held he impliedly consented, so the recording did not violate Section 16.02.
- Long v. State (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas 2017, 535 S.W.3d 511)✓A school board member had her daughter hide a phone in a visiting locker room to record the coach's halftime speech and sent it to the board; the court held Section 16.02's 'oral communication' incorporates the expectation of privacy test, which the coach met.
- Siddiq v. State (Court of Appeals of Texas 2016, 502 S.W.3d 387)✓Police automatically recorded a DWI arrestee's call to his father from the jail book-in desk, capturing him saying he was drunk; the court applied the law enforcement exception to hold the recording did not violate Section 16.02, so admitting it was not error.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Texas Recording Laws (2026): One-Party Consent Rules, Texas Security Camera Laws: Residential, Commercial, and Privacy Rules, Texas Landlord-Tenant Recording Laws: Cameras, Privacy, and Rights
§ 21.15INVASIVE VISUAL RECORDINGIn forcecited in 17 of our articles
(a) In this section: (1) "Female breast" means any portion of the female breast below the top of the areola. (2) "Intimate area" means the naked or clothed genitals, pubic area, anus, buttocks, or female breast of a person. (3) "Changing room" means a room or portioned area provided for or primarily used for the changing of clothing and includes dressing rooms, locker rooms, and swimwear changing areas. (3-a) "Place in which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy" means a place in which a reasonable person would believe that the person could disrobe in privacy, without being concerned that the act of undressing would be photographed or visually recorded by another or that a visual image of the person undressing would be broadcasted or transmitted by another. The term includes a bathroom, bedroom, and changing room. (4) "Promote" has the meaning assigned by Section 43.21.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at statutes.capitol.texas.gov
Cited in 44 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):The Court of Criminal Appeals struck down the 2007 improper photography provision at Penal Code 21.15(b)(1), and Ex parte Shay (2016) set aside a conviction under it. The Legislature re-enacted the section in 2015, and Ex Parte Kamilah a Hamilton (2020) held the current subsection (b)(1) survives strict scrutiny and is not overbroad.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Ex Parte Nyabwa (Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston) 2011, 366 S.W.3d 719)✓Charged with improper photography, Nyabwa attacked section 21.15(b)(1) by pretrial habeas; the court of appeals held the 2007 subsection regulated the photographer's intent rather than speech and was neither overbroad nor vague. Ex parte Thompson struck it down in 2014.
- Ex parte Shay (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas 2016, 507 S.W.3d 731)✓Shay pleaded guilty under section 21.15(b)(1) before Ex parte Thompson struck that subsection down; the Court of Criminal Appeals held his favorable plea bargain did not estop habeas relief, set aside the conviction, and remanded to dismiss the indictment.
- Ex Parte Kamilah a Hamilton (Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston) 2020)✓Indicted under the 2015 version of section 21.15(b)(1) for broadcasting an image of a complainant's intimate area, Hamilton claimed facial overbreadth; the court held the rewritten subsection survives strict scrutiny, is not overbroad, and affirmed denial of relief.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Texas Laws on Recording in Public: Rights, Limits, and Exceptions, Texas School Recording Laws: Classrooms, Cameras, and Student Privacy, Texas Workplace Recording Laws: Employee and Employer Rights
Texas Business & Commerce Code
§ 503.001CAPTURE OR USE OF BIOMETRIC IDENTIFIERIn forcecited in 11 of our articles
(a) In this section: (1) "Artificial intelligence system" has the meaning assigned by Section 551.001. (2) "Biometric identifier" means a retina or iris scan, fingerprint, voiceprint, or record of hand or face geometry. (b) A person may not capture a biometric identifier of an individual for a commercial purpose unless the person: (1) informs the individual before capturing the biometric identifier; and (2) receives the individual's consent to capture the biometric identifier. (b-1) For purposes of Subsection (b), an individual has not been informed of and has not provided consent for the capture or storage of a biometric identifier of an individual for a commercial purpose based solely on the existence of an image or other media containing one or more biometric identifiers of the individual on the Internet or other publicly available source unless the image or other media was made publicly available by the individual to whom the biometric identifiers relate.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at statutes.capitol.texas.gov
Also relied on in: Amazon Ring Sued Over "Familiar Faces" Facial Recognition (2026), Oklahoma Smart Glasses Recording Laws 2026, Biometric Privacy Laws by State (2026): BIPA, CUBI & Consent
Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code
§ 123.002CAUSE OF ACTIONIn forcecited in 2 of our articles
(a) A party to a communication may sue a person who: (1) intercepts, attempts to intercept, or employs or obtains another to intercept or attempt to intercept the communication; (2) uses or divulges information that he knows or reasonably should know was obtained by interception of the communication; or (3) as a landlord, building operator, or communication common carrier, either personally or through an agent or employee, aids or knowingly permits interception or attempted interception of the communication. (b) This section does not apply to a party to a communication if an interception or attempted interception of the communication is authorized by Title 18, United States Code, Section 2516.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at statutes.capitol.texas.gov
Cited in 13 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2024
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Stephens v. Dolcefino (Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston) 2003, 126 S.W.3d 120)“…to intercept certain communications. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem.Code Ann. § 123.002(a). When appellants later obtained the…”
- Collins v. Collins (Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston) 1995, 904 S.W.2d 792)“…ulges information” that was obtained by an illegal wiretap. Tex.Civ.Prac. & Rem.Code § 123.002. Section 123.004 states that a party wh…”
- the Kroger Co. v. Christopher Milanes (Court of Appeals of Texas 2015, 474 S.W.3d 321)“…lly. Kroger cites no authority supporting its position. Cf. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 123.002 (West 2011) (creating a civil cause of…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Texas AI Meeting Recording Laws (2026)
United States Code Title 18
§ 2511Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibitedIn forcecited in 441 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) · last checked 2026-09-17 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 2,045 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Griggs-Ryan v. Smith (1990) applied the Section 2511(2)(d) prior-consent exception, treating a tenant repeatedly told that all incoming calls were taped as having impliedly consented. United States v. United States District Court (1972) read the then-current Section 2511(3) as conferring no presidential surveillance power.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Mitchell v. Forsyth (Supreme Court of the United States 1985, 472 U.S. 511)✓The Attorney General authorized a warrantless 1970 national security wiretap that caught the plaintiff's calls; the Court held the since-repealed Section 2511(3) disclaimer left the tap lawful under Title III, and that Mitchell had qualified immunity.
- United States v. United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (Supreme Court of the United States 1972, 407 U.S. 297)✓The Attorney General approved warrantless wiretaps on members of a domestic group accused of bombing a CIA office; the Court read Section 2511(3) as a congressional disclaimer conferring no surveillance power, then held the Fourth Amendment required prior judicial approval.
- Forsyth v. Barr (Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit 1994, 19 F.3d 1527)✓Dallas police used, in an internal affairs probe of an officer, calls private parties allegedly intercepted illegally; assuming that was unlawful, the Fifth Circuit held Section 2517(1) and (2) allowed the disclosure and use, defeating the Section 2511(1)(c) and (d) claims.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Connecticut Recording Laws (2026): Hybrid Consent Rules Explained, Oregon Recording Laws (2026): Hybrid One-Party and All-Party Rules, US Recording Laws by State (2026): All 50 States Explained
§ 2510DefinitionsIn forcecited in 137 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) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 2,382 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):United States v. New York Telephone Co. (1977) held that pen registers fall outside Title III because they do not acquire the contents of a communication as Section 2510(4) and (8) define interception. Forsyth v. Barr (1994) applied the same definitions, treating the defendant officers as law enforcement officers under Section 2510(7).
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Forsyth v. Barr (Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit 1994, 19 F.3d 1527)✓Neighbors tapped an informant's home line and the overheard charges reached Dallas internal affairs; the Fifth Circuit saw no evidence the police defendants intercepted anything and held they were 2510(7) law enforcement officers, so 2517(1) and (2) allowed their use of it.
- Nixon v. Administrator of General Services (Supreme Court of the United States 1977, 433 U.S. 425)“…of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, 18 U. S. C. §§ 2510 et seq. 408 F. Supp., at 363 . We…”
- Gannett Co. v. DePasquale (Supreme Court of the United States 1979, 443 U.S. 368)“…of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, 18 U. S. C. § 2510 et seq., be preserved prior to the d…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Surveillance Camera Laws by State (2026 Guide), Georgia Recording Laws (2026): One-Party Audio, All-Party Video, District of Columbia Recording Laws (2026): One-Party Consent Rules
§ 1801Video voyeurismIn forcecited in 81 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) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 53 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Courts have applied 18 U.S.C. 1801 mainly at its edges. United States v. Johnson (2010) read it as Congress's answer to secretly filming nudity on federal property, acquitting on a child exploitation charge instead. EPIC v. Department of Homeland Security (2011) applied the Section 1801(c) law enforcement exception to a TSA scanner claim.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- United States v. Anthony Helton (Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit 2019, 944 F.3d 198)“…from this list of federal offenses is video voyeurism under 18 U.S.C. § 1801. Rather than list this statute as an enu…”
- United States v. Johnson (District Court, W.D. Missouri 2010, 719 F. Supp. 2d 1059)✓A weightlifting coach hid a camera to film minors weighing in nude; acquitting him under the child exploitation statute, the court called that conduct plain video voyeurism under section 1801, but noted the section reaches only federal maritime and territorial jurisdiction.
- Electronic Privacy Information Center v. United States Department of Homeland Security (Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit 2011, 653 F.3d 1)✓Privacy groups challenged TSA body scanners under the Video Voyeurism Prevention Act; the D.C. Circuit held the statute's exception for lawful law enforcement, correctional, or intelligence activity applied to airport screening, so the section 1801 claim failed.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: South Dakota Voyeurism Laws, Utah Voyeurism Laws, Is It Illegal to Video Record Someone Without Their Consent? (2026)
Search our full record of US law — 2.1 million sections, every state + federal →
Sources and References
- Tex. Penal Code § 16.02 (Unlawful Interception, Use, or Disclosure of Wire, Oral, or Electronic Communications). Texas one-party consent wiretap statute. Participant exception allows recording own conversations. Unlawful interception by a non-participant is a second-degree felony (2-20 years; up to $10,000 fine).(statutes.capitol.texas.gov).gov
- Tex. Penal Code § 21.15 (Invasive Visual Recording). Prohibits recording intimate areas without consent in any place where a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy (expanded September 1, 2025). State-jail felony (180 days-2 years; up to $10,000 fine). Mandatory sex-offender registration required since September 1, 2025.(statutes.capitol.texas.gov).gov
- Tex. Bus. & Com. Code §§ 503.001-503.004 (Texas Capture or Use of Biometric Identifier Act, CUBI). Prohibits capturing a biometric identifier, including face geometry, for a commercial purpose without prior notice and consent. AG-enforced; up to $25,000 per violation. No private right of action.(statutes.capitol.texas.gov).gov
- Texas Attorney General, Consumer Protection Division: Biometric Identifier Act. Official AG guidance confirming CUBI requirements and the AG's enforcement posture on commercial biometric capture without consent.(texasattorneygeneral.gov).gov
- Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 123.002 (Civil remedies for unlawful interception). An injured party may recover $10,000 per occurrence of unlawful interception, actual damages in excess of $10,000, punitive damages, and attorney fees. Separate from the criminal penalty in Penal Code § 16.02.(statutes.capitol.texas.gov).gov
- 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Federal Wiretap Act). One-party consent exception at § 2511(2)(d). Criminal penalty up to 5 years imprisonment; civil liability of at least $10,000 per unlawful interception.(law.cornell.edu)
- 18 U.S.C. § 2510(2) and (18) (Definitions: oral communication and aural transfer). Basis for the rule that silent video-only recording in public 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 where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy.(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, use a voice or gesture before capturing, and stop recording if asked. Meta instructs users to obey applicable law.(meta.com)