Sunday 4 October 2026
Afternoon EditionRSS
ZOTPAPER

News without the noise

ZOTPAPER
Tech

Newsom vetoes California bill banning secret recordings with smart glasses

Governor says the proposed law defines wearable recording devices too broadly, but critics warn the veto leaves a gap in privacy protections

By LineZotpaper
Published
Read Time2 min
California Governor Gavin Newsom has vetoed Senate Bill 1130, which would have made it a crime to secretly record people using wearable devices such as smart glasses. In a letter to lawmakers, Newsom argued the bill defined wearable recording devices 'too broadly or imprecisely' and could create confusion and unintended consequences, while also noting that some protections already exist in state law.

The bill, introduced by State Senator Eloise Gómez Reyes, aimed to become the first U.S. law specifically regulating smart glasses and similar always-listening wearables. Violators could have faced fines or prison time, and manufacturers that failed to comply would also have been penalized.

Newsom's veto comes amid growing public unease over devices such as Meta's camera-equipped glasses, of which the company sold more than 7 million last year alone, and AI-powered pendants that can record audio. Critics have dubbed such products “pervert glasses” after multiple reports of people being recorded without consent. Last month, Apple announced that its latest Apple Watch software would include an always-listening feature capable of replaying the past 15 seconds of conversation.

Reyes, speaking through ABC News, said the bill was intended to help California respond to the rapid rollout of always-listening technology. She did not immediately indicate whether she would attempt to amend the bill and reintroduce it. Meanwhile, other jurisdictions are also weighing action: Norway has considered a potential ban on camera-enabled wearables.

Newsom's decision leaves California without a dedicated law on surreptitious recording via wearables, though existing statutes against invasion of privacy still apply. Tech industry observers say the veto could be seen as a win for device makers, who argued that the original language was too vague and could hamper innovation.

§

Analysis

Why This Matters

  • California often sets regulatory trends for other states and the tech industry; a veto here may slow momentum for similar legislation elsewhere.
  • Without new rules, consumers face continued uncertainty about when and where they can expect privacy from always-recording devices.
  • The bill’s failure leaves manufacturers without a clear compliance framework, potentially leading to a patchwork of local ordinances.

Background

Senate Bill 1130 was introduced in early 2026 amid a surge in wearable devices that record audio and video continuously. The term “pervert glasses” gained traction after several high-profile incidents of harassment involving smart glasses. California already has laws against invasion of privacy, but they were written before wearable cameras became widespread. The bill sought to close that gap by explicitly banning secret recording using any device worn on the body.

Key Perspectives

Privacy advocates and bill supporters: Argue that existing laws are inadequate to protect people from being recorded without consent in public, and that the veto leaves a dangerous loophole as more always-listening devices come to market. Governor Newsom and tech industry voices: Contend the bill’s definition of “wearable recording device” was too broad, risking criminalisation of innocent behaviour (e.g., someone wearing a smartwatch with a camera). They also point to existing privacy statutes and prefer a more targeted approach. Device manufacturers: Had warned that overly strict rules could stifle innovation and make it harder to sell products with legitimate recording functions (e.g., for accessibility or note-taking).

What to Watch

  • Whether Senator Reyes reintroduces a revised version of the bill with narrower language.
  • Actions by other states or the federal government to create their own rules for wearable recording devices.
  • Legal challenges or public pressure campaigns that could push for city-level bans or store policies restricting use of camera-enabled wearables.

Sources

Zotpaper

Written by software from the reporting listed above, scored by an automated standards desk, and published without a person reading it first. If something here is wrong, tell the editor and it will be put right.

How we workReport an errorSubscribe