Senate Bill (SB) 1130, legislation that would establish criminal penalties for certain uses of wearable recording devices, continues to move through the California legislature. I’ve had the honor of discussing this measure with staff of the bill’s sponsor, California State Senator Eloise Gómez Reyes, and anticipate there will be more efforts to enact laws seeking to impose measured responses to the privacy, security, and other challenges posed by the latest generation of AI-enabled wearables.

The Rise of AI-Enabled Smart Glasses

SB 1130 arrives at a critical moment. Modern AI glasses blend high-resolution cameras, always-on microphones, and real-time AI assistants into a hands-free wearable that can capture, analyze, and even transcribe ambient information around the wearer. Unlike traditional recording devices that require deliberate action, AI glasses and similar wearables can passively capture and transcribe conversations throughout the day, creating permanent searchable records of discussions that participants never knew were being documented.

Several institutions and organizations have taken steps to minimize the impact of these devices. For example, in July 2026, New York became the first state to prohibit AI-enabled smart glasses in all state courthouses. Outside the U.S., in August 2026, England and Wales followed suit when His Majesty’s Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS) announced that AI glasses will be confiscated from anyone entering its judicial buildings. The UK has also seen its first criminal prosecution involving smart glasses, with a guilty plea for voyeurism at Warrington Magistrates’ Court after a man recorded sex with a woman without her consent using smart glasses.

As we explored in our four-part series on AI glasses, “The Hidden Legal Minefield: Compliance Concerns with AI Smart Glasses,” these devices no doubt raise compliance issues spanning biometrics, two-party consent, workplace surveillance, labor law, data security, and third-party AI processing risks.

What SB 1130 Would Do?

Specifically, SB 1130 would make it a misdemeanor to operate a wearable recording device to capture sound or video of another person in any area within a place of business where that person has a reasonable expectation of privacy, without their explicit consent. Penalties include up to one year in county jail, a fine of up to $1,500 per violation, or both.

The bill also targets the circumvention of recording indicators such as small lights or sounds that signal a device is actively recording. Disabling an indicator would itself be a misdemeanor, and the manufacture, sale, or use of technology primarily designed to disable recording indicators would carry civil penalties of up to $2,500 per violation.

What is a wearable recording device?

SB 1130 defines wearable recording device to mean:

“any device that is designed to be worn on or attached to the body, rather than held by the user, that has the capacity to make sound or video recordings or to transmit sound or video to another device or to the internet.”

This definition likely would capture a broad array of devices beyond AI glasses. However, recent amendments adding “rather than held by the user,” potentially indicate an intention to avoid capturing smartphones, which generally are not designed to be worn or attached to the body (parents of 13-17 years old children may disagree) and typically are held by the user.

What is a place of business?

SB 1130 defines a place of business to mean:

“any physical office or retail establishment in which members of the public receive goods or services from the business.”

What is a reasonable expectation of privacy?

It is not clear at this point and may never be. While walking down a public sidewalk in California does not generally give rise to a reasonable expectation of privacy for visual observation, California law can be more protective than many other states when it comes to audio recording of conversations, targeted or technologically enhanced surveillance, and publication of private facts, even when the underlying events occurred in technically “public” spaces. The context, the nature of the information, and the technology used all matter.

This may be why SB 1130 focuses specifically on places of business where a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy, rather than attempting to regulate all public recording.

Are there provisions which would affect some employees directly?

The bill carves out of the definition of wearable recording devices:

“a headset, two-way radio, or similar device that is operated by an employee during the normal course of their business duties and is provided by their employer for that purpose.”

This description potentially includes positions such as call center representatives and order processors at some fast food restaurants. While providing some relief from its reach, SB 1130 also provides that employees who record sound or video of a customer using such devices must inform the customer that they are being recorded. So, in addition to assessing the implications of more cutting-edge technologies entering the workplace, some employers may need to revisit how their employees use more traditional recording equipment.

What comes next?

SB 1130 has not yet been enacted and must still clear the full legislature and receive the Governor’s signature. But the trajectory is clear: California is moving to close the gap between legacy wiretapping statutes and modern wearable technology and, as noted, it is part of a global trend.

We will continue monitoring SB 1130 as it moves through the legislative process. In the meantime, if you have questions about this bill or related issues, contact a Jackson Lewis attorney to discuss.