Texas Smart Glasses Recording Laws (2026)

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), 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 exception is built directly into § 16.02: the interception is not unlawful if the actor is a party to the communication, or if one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent, provided the interception is not made for the purpose of committing a criminal or tortious 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 variants of the offense, involving illegal pen-register use and the manufacture or possession of interception devices, are state-jail felonies, carrying 180 days to two years of confinement and a fine of up to $10,000.

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. This means any setting, not just traditional private spaces, where a person would reasonably not expect to be filmed falls within the statute's scope if intimate areas are involved.

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 covered any photography or filming in a public place without requiring the defendant to be in a place of privacy or to capture intimate areas. 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

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

• Texas Data Privacy Laws
• Texas Deepfake Laws
• Texas Drone Laws
• Texas Recording Laws