California State Capitol in Sacramento, where Governor Newsom vetoed smart glasses bill SB 1130
Photo: Henri Sivonen, CC BY 2.0 via Wikimedia Commons

California Governor Gavin Newsom has vetoed a bill that would have imposed new rules on recording with smart glasses and other wearable devices. The September 30 decision stops Senate Bill 1130 from becoming law, despite growing concern that miniature cameras and microphones are making it harder to know when someone is being recorded.

The proposal combined restrictions on recording in sensitive private spaces with a future requirement for recording indicators. Beginning in 2028, covered wearable devices would have needed a visible light or another signal showing when audio or video recording was taking place. The measure also sought to restrict technology specifically designed to conceal that signal.

Newsom’s objection was not that privacy should be ignored. In his veto explanation, he argued that the definition of the devices covered was too broad and pointed to privacy protections already found in California law. The result leaves legislators and smart-glasses manufacturers debating how specific new safeguards should be as wearable cameras become more commonplace.

What California’s SB 1130 proposed

Introduced by State Senator Eloise Gómez Reyes, SB 1130 addressed circumstances where a recording device might look like ordinary eyewear or another personal accessory. The concern is particularly acute in places where people normally expect privacy, including changing rooms, medical offices and similar settings.

Under the proposal, a person using covered smart glasses to secretly record someone in protected circumstances could have faced criminal penalties, including fines of up to $1,500. Manufacturers that failed to follow the proposed device requirements could have faced penalties of up to $2,500. Those figures describe what the bill contemplated, not punishments created by the vetoed legislation.

The recording-light provision was also prospective. It would not have required every existing pair of smart glasses to be immediately redesigned on September 30. The proposed requirement was scheduled for 2028 and extended to other categories of wearable recording technology rather than only one brand of glasses.

The bill sought to prohibit the sale of products intended to conceal the required indicator. That feature addressed a straightforward problem: a light that can be easily hidden provides little reassurance to people who are trying to decide whether they are being filmed.

Why Newsom rejected the measure

Newsom’s veto letter described the definition of a wearable recording device as too broad. That matters because a law written to cover a specific emerging privacy problem can create unintended burdens if its language also sweeps in unrelated equipment and uses.

There is also an existing legal framework. California already restricts certain nonconsensual recordings and has rules requiring consent for recording confidential communications. People in private spaces do not lose those protections because the recording equipment happens to be worn on someone’s face rather than held in a hand.

The distinction is important. The veto does not make secret recording legal. It means the additional duties and penalties proposed by SB 1130 will not take effect under that bill. Existing statutes continue to apply according to the circumstances of an incident.

Industry representatives also argued that the legislation was not the right way to address the issue. TechNet, a technology-industry organization, opposed the measure and contended that California already had substantial rules governing unlawful recording, according to Associated Press reporting distributed by LAist.

The privacy problem is more than a camera light

Smart glasses have a distinctive advantage over conventional phones: they can capture a scene from the wearer’s point of view without requiring the person to raise a device or visibly frame a shot. That can be useful for hands-free photography, travel documentation, accessibility and real-time assistance. It also creates uncertainty for everyone nearby.

People generally recognize the familiar posture of someone filming on a smartphone. When the camera is built into the frame of a pair of glasses, that social signal becomes less obvious. A person in a gym, café, workplace or waiting room may not know whether an ordinary conversation is being recorded or transmitted.

Recording indicators are one possible solution, but they do not resolve every question. How bright must a light be? Can it be seen in sunlight? What happens when the wearer is recording audio but not video? Should a device be blocked from recording in some locations, or should the responsibility fall on the person using it?

The California debate reflects those practical questions. Stronger device-level signals might make recording more visible, yet poorly defined requirements could affect products that have legitimate, nonintrusive uses. Lawmakers must also consider how rules can be enforced when products are sold across state lines.

Smart glasses manufacturers face a trust test

Camera-equipped AI glasses are becoming a more visible part of the consumer technology market, while companies are also introducing display glasses and camera-free audio eyewear. These categories should not be treated as interchangeable. A product with no recording hardware raises different privacy concerns from a device that can continuously capture its surroundings.

Manufacturers have an incentive to make their products socially acceptable. If people become suspicious of everyone wearing smart eyewear, even responsible users may encounter resistance in businesses and public settings. Clear recording signals, transparent controls and sensible default settings can help build trust independently of government mandates.

The veto also leaves room for a narrower legislative proposal. California could revisit the subject with more precise definitions, a different enforcement mechanism or separate requirements for particular types of recording. That is a possibility, not an announced outcome of today’s decision.

For the XR industry, SB 1130 illustrates a larger transition. Smart glasses are moving from experimental gadgets to everyday accessories, and the privacy rules written for visible cameras may not always map neatly onto them. Newsom has rejected this particular approach, but the underlying question remains: how should people know when technology that looks ordinary is quietly recording them?

Related coverage on Virtual Reality Times

Sources

https://virtualrealitytimes.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/smart-glasses-privacy-2026-09-30-600x416.jpghttps://virtualrealitytimes.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/smart-glasses-privacy-2026-09-30-150x90.jpgVirtual Reality TimesAR HeadsetsLegalPhilosophy and EthicsCalifornia SB 1130,Gavin Newsom,recording light,smart glasses privacy,wearable camerasCalifornia Governor Gavin Newsom has vetoed a bill that would have imposed new rules on recording with smart glasses and other wearable devices. The September 30 decision stops Senate Bill 1130 from becoming law, despite growing concern that miniature cameras and microphones are making it harder to know when...VR, Oculus Rift, and HTC Vive News - Cryptocurrency, Adult, Sex, Porn, XXX