Wisconsin Smart Glasses Recording Laws

Yes, smart glasses are legal to own and wear in Wisconsin, but recording with them carries legal responsibilities tied to the state's one-party consent rule. Under Wis. Stat. § 968.31(2)(b), you may record any conversation you are a party to without notifying the other participants, provided the interception is not made for the purpose of committing a criminal or tortious act. Recording in private spaces where people expect visual privacy is a separate criminal offense regardless of consent.

Are Smart Glasses Legal to Own and Wear in Wisconsin?

Yes. Wisconsin has no statute that restricts owning, purchasing, or wearing smart glasses such as Meta Ray-Ban AI glasses. The device is freely sold throughout the state and its mere possession raises no legal issue under Wisconsin or federal law.

The legal analysis begins only when the glasses are used to capture audio or video. The outcome depends on the content being recorded, the location, your role in any conversation being captured, and the purpose of the recording.

Recording Video in Public vs. Private Spaces

Public spaces

Recording video in a public space is lawful in Wisconsin under both state and federal law. When a person is in public (on a street, sidewalk, in a park, or in any location generally accessible to the public), they have a diminished reasonable expectation of privacy from being seen or filmed. The federal Wiretap Act defines "oral communication" under 18 U.S.C. § 2510(2) as speech uttered under circumstances justifying a reasonable expectation against interception. Silent video capture in public does not trigger that statute. Wisconsin law tracks this same principle.

The pivotal question is whether the subject of a recording has a reasonable expectation of privacy from being observed. Under Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967), that test requires both a subjective expectation of privacy and one that society recognizes as objectively reasonable. People walking on a public sidewalk, attending an outdoor market, or visiting a state park have no reasonable expectation of privacy from being filmed. Smart glasses worn in those settings generally create no legal exposure from video capture alone.

Semi-public and private spaces

The legal picture shifts in semi-public or fully 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 to others, such as a workplace break room during a quiet one-on-one conversation or a restaurant booth during a personal discussion, can give rise to a reasonable expectation of privacy in the content of spoken words exchanged there.

Recording in these semi-public environments raises two independent legal concerns for a smart glasses wearer: the audio consent issue under § 968.31 and the visual privacy issue under §§ 942.08 and 942.09. Both must be considered together whenever the glasses are used outside a genuinely open public setting.

Recording in private places

Wis. Stat. § 942.08 criminalizes the knowing installation or use of a surveillance device to observe a nude or partially nude person in a private place without consent. It also prohibits using any device to look into private areas of public accommodations such as restrooms or dressing rooms, entering another person's property to observe them through a dwelling window for sexual gratification, and recording under a person's clothing to capture genitals, buttocks, or breasts without consent. Using smart glasses to secretly video-record someone inside their home, a locker room, a medical office, or any other private space directly implicates that statute alongside the wiretap prohibition.

Recording Audio and Wisconsin's One-Party Consent Rule

This is the load-bearing legal issue for smart glasses users in Wisconsin.

The statute: Wis. Stat. § 968.31

Wisconsin's Electronic Surveillance Control Law is codified at Wis. Stat. § 968.31. Section 968.31(1) sets out the general prohibition: it is a Class H felony to intentionally intercept, attempt to intercept, or procure any other person to intercept a wire, electronic, or oral communication, unless a specific statutory exception applies.

Section 968.31(2)(b) provides the one-party consent exception: it is not unlawful for a person who is a party to the communication, or who has the prior consent of one of the parties, to intercept a wire, electronic, or oral communication, provided the interception is not made for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act in violation of Wisconsin or federal law. This tracks the language of the federal Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d)) but operates as an independent Wisconsin state law applicable to all in-state recordings regardless of whether a communication crosses state lines.

In practice, a person wearing smart glasses who is part of a conversation (an employee speaking with a supervisor, a consumer on the phone with a business, a person having an in-person discussion with a colleague) may lawfully record that conversation in Wisconsin without disclosing the recording to the other participants.

Wisconsin's "criminal or tortious purpose" limitation

Wisconsin's one-party exception includes a meaningful limitation. The exception does not apply when the recording is made for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act. This means that if the purpose of the recording is to facilitate blackmail, to stalk someone, to gather leverage for extortion, or to support a defamation campaign, the one-party exception does not apply and the recording becomes a Class H felony.

This purpose carve-out is significant for smart glasses users. The covert, wearable nature of the device and the fact that it looks like ordinary eyewear can be treated as circumstantial evidence of intent when a prosecutor or civil plaintiff argues that the recording was made to harm someone. Maintaining a lawful purpose for any recording is as important as being a genuine participant in the conversation.

What one-party consent does not cover

The one-party exception applies only when the recorder is a genuine participant in the communication being captured. It does not protect:

• Using smart glasses to record a private conversation between two other people that the wearer is not part of.
• Secretly capturing oral communications of others in a private space where the wearer has no legitimate reason to be.
• Recording with the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act against another person.

Recording private conversations of others without participation is an unlawful interception under § 968.31(1) and a Class H felony.

Civil vs. criminal proceedings: the telephone-recording admissibility rule

Wisconsin's one-party consent rule under § 968.31 governs the criminal interception statute; making the recording is lawful if you are a participant. Whether that recording can be used as evidence is a separate question. For telephone-conversation recordings specifically, Wisconsin has a real, specific admissibility rule: Wis. Stat. § 885.365 makes a recorded telephone conversation totally inadmissible in a Wisconsin civil action unless the person being recorded was told, at the time, that the call was being recorded and that the recording might be used in a court proceeding. This is a notice-and-admissibility rule tied to telephone calls, not an all-party consent requirement, and it applies independent of whether the recording was otherwise lawful to make under § 968.31. Recordings of in-person conversations are not governed by § 885.365. Anyone planning to use a telephone recording as evidence in a Wisconsin civil, family-law, or administrative proceeding should confirm the required notice was given, or consult a Wisconsin attorney before relying on it.

Practical application

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

• Recording a conversation you are actively having with someone (at work, at home, over the phone, or in a restaurant) is lawful. You are a party. No disclosure is required.
• Recording the private conversation of two other people you are not participating in is unlawful.
• Recording your own video content in public with no conversation being captured raises no consent issue at all.

For a complete analysis of Wisconsin's consent framework, see the Wisconsin Recording Laws page.

Where You Cannot Record: Wis. Stat. §§ 942.08 and 942.09

Regardless of consent rules, Wisconsin law absolutely prohibits recording in locations where a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy from visual observation of their body or intimate conduct. Smart glasses are treated identically to any other recording device in these contexts.

Invasion of privacy: Wis. Stat. § 942.08

Wisconsin's invasion-of-privacy statute prohibits four distinct categories of conduct:

Surveillance in private places under § 942.08(2)(a): knowingly installing or using a surveillance device to observe a nude or partially nude person in a private place without their consent. The penalties escalate based on the presence of a minor victim. A basic first-offense violation is a Class A misdemeanor (up to 9 months imprisonment and a fine of up to $10,000). When the victim is under 18 years of age, the offense is a Class I felony (up to 3.5 years and a fine of up to $10,000).

Voyeurism in public accommodations under § 942.08(2)(b): looking into private areas of public accommodations (restrooms, dressing rooms, and similar spaces) for sexual arousal or gratification without the consent of those present.

Trespassing to observe under § 942.08(2)(d): entering another person's property or common areas of multi-unit dwellings to observe occupants through a window or door for the purpose of sexual arousal or gratification, where the occupant has a reasonable expectation of privacy and does not consent.

Upskirt and downblouse recording under § 942.08(3): using any device to intentionally view, broadcast, or record under a person's outer clothing to capture genitals, buttocks, breasts, or pubic area without consent. Unlike the Class A misdemeanor base offenses in subsection (2), this conduct is a Class I felony.

Capturing intimate representations: Wis. Stat. § 942.09

Wisconsin's intimate-representation statute provides a second layer of criminal liability specifically addressing the capture of visual depictions of intimate content.

Section 942.09(2)(am)1 makes it a Class I felony to capture an intimate representation of a person without that person's consent under circumstances in which the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy. An "intimate representation" is defined to include nude or partially nude depictions, clothed genitalia or buttocks not otherwise visible, persons using bathroom facilities or hygiene products, and persons engaged in sexual conduct or contact.

The statute extends to the reproduction, possession, distribution, and exhibition of intimate representations known to have been non-consensually captured, all of which are Class I felony offenses. Posting synthetic intimate representations to coerce, harass, or intimidate a person is separately criminalized as a Class I felony. When the victim is a minor, certain locker-room violations escalate to Class H felonies.

Locations where recording is absolutely prohibited

The prohibition applies most clearly in restrooms, locker rooms, gym changing areas, fitting rooms, private residences, hotel rooms, and medical examination rooms. These are locations where persons have an unambiguous reasonable expectation of privacy from visual observation of their body. Smart glasses in these spaces are treated identically to any other recording device under both §§ 942.08 and 942.09.

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.

The covert appearance of smart glasses does not create any exception to the voyeurism prohibition. A device designed to look like ordinary eyewear may actually heighten evidence of intentional concealment, which is directly relevant to the "knowing" and "intentional" mental-state elements of §§ 942.08 and 942.09.

Facial Recognition and Biometric Privacy

Wisconsin 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 Wisconsin law alone, using smart glasses with a facial recognition application to scan and identify strangers does not expose a person to the direct statutory-damages liability that exists in Illinois (up to $5,000 per person per violation under BIPA) or the AG-enforcement risk that exists in Texas (up to $25,000 per violation under CUBI). That said, Wisconsin residents are not without recourse.

Common-law privacy torts, particularly intrusion upon seclusion under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652B, apply regardless of any statute. An intentional intrusion upon someone's solitude or private affairs in a manner highly offensive to a reasonable person creates civil liability even if no footage is ever shared. The act of covert recording is itself the intrusion; publication is not required.

The practical risk is greatest 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 reverse facial-recognition application. In October 2024, Harvard students demonstrated the "I-XRAY" system by pairing Meta Ray-Ban glasses with a 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. Wisconsin users who build or use similar integrations face civil tort liability and, if the footage is used to stalk or harass, criminal exposure under Wisconsin's stalking and intimidation statutes.

If a Wisconsin smart glasses user captures the face of an Illinois, Texas, or Washington resident, those states' biometric laws may reach the conduct regardless of where the recording physically occurs. Consulting an attorney is warranted before any commercial deployment of facial recognition in Wisconsin.

Penalties Summary

Civil remedies under Wis. Stat. § 968.31(2m) are independent of criminal prosecution. A plaintiff whose communication was unlawfully intercepted may recover actual damages (subject to a floor of the greater of $100 per day of violation or $1,000), plus punitive damages and reasonable attorney fees.

At the federal level, the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511) imposes up to 5 years imprisonment for criminal violations and civil liability of at least $10,000 in statutory damages for each unlawful interception.

Practical Tips for Smart Glasses Users in Wisconsin

Confirm you are a participant before recording audio. Wisconsin's one-party consent rule under § 968.31(2)(b) protects only genuine participants in a conversation. If the other person is addressing you directly and you are exchanging words with them, you are a participant and the one-party rule applies. If you are positioning the glasses to capture a nearby conversation that does not involve you, you are outside the exception and face Class H felony exposure.

Keep the purpose lawful. The criminal-or-tortious-purpose carve-out in § 968.31(2)(b) means the one-party exception does not shield recordings made to extort, stalk, defame, or harass another person. If the reason you are recording could be characterized as harming the other party rather than protecting a legitimate interest, reconsider whether to record at all.

Keep the LED active. Meta's Ray-Ban AI glasses include a built-in white capture LED near the right frame that illuminates whenever the camera is actively recording video, taking a photo, or streaming live. Wisconsin law does not currently mandate recording indicators for wearables, but deliberately covering the LED removes the only visible signal that recording is occurring. This strengthens evidence of covert non-consensual recording intent if a dispute arises under §§ 942.08 or 942.09.

Disclose before sensitive meetings. Wisconsin law does not require you to disclose recordings of conversations you are part of, but disclosing the recording at the outset of any formal or sensitive meeting (a job interview, a medical appointment, a legal consultation, a family-law proceeding) eliminates ambiguity about consent, avoids civil intrusion-upon-seclusion exposure entirely, and protects the admissibility of the recording if you later need to use it.

Never record in private spaces. The prohibitions under §§ 942.08 and 942.09 on recording intimate areas in private locations are absolute. Remove the glasses before entering locker rooms, restrooms, changing rooms, or any other space where people have a reasonable expectation of privacy from visual observation of their body. Penalties include Class I felony charges carrying up to 3.5 years imprisonment, with enhanced exposure when a minor is involved.

Watch for cross-border calls. Wisconsin's one-party consent rule governs calls where both parties are in Wisconsin. When either party to a call is located in an all-party consent state, the stricter law of the other state may apply. Illinois, a neighboring state, requires all-party consent under 720 ILCS 5/14-2. If you are in Wisconsin but the other party is in Illinois, their all-party requirement may govern. When in doubt, disclose or confirm the other party's location before recording.

Plan carefully for civil and family proceedings. If you record a phone conversation in Wisconsin with the intent to use it in litigation or a family-court proceeding, tell the other party at the time that the call is being recorded and may be used in court. Wis. Stat. § 885.365 makes an undisclosed telephone recording totally inadmissible in a Wisconsin civil action, regardless of whether making the recording itself was lawful under § 968.31(2)(b). Consult a Wisconsin attorney before relying on any recording, telephone or in-person, as evidence.

Driving caution. No Wisconsin statute as of June 2026 specifically addresses wearable display devices while driving. Navigation use through smart glasses is analogous to a mounted GPS unit. Using smart glasses for live streaming, social media posting, or video calls while driving raises the same distracted-driving exposure as any electronic device and remains legally unsettled.

More Wisconsin Laws

• Wisconsin Data Privacy Laws
• Wisconsin Deepfake Laws
• Wisconsin Drone Laws
• Wisconsin Recording Laws