California smart glasses veto has sent a proposed privacy law back to lawmakers after Governor Gavin Newsom declined to sign it. The bill, California Senate Bill 1130, would have made it unlawful to secretly record people with wearable recording devices. Instead, the California smart glasses veto delays what would have been the first state-level regulation of the technology in the country.
The decision, announced in a letter to lawmakers on Wednesday, matters because camera-equipped glasses and always-listening microphones are becoming everyday products. Meta sold more than 7 million wearable glasses last year alone. California’s attempt to regulate them just stalled, at least for now.
Why Newsom Rejected the Bill
Newsom declined to sign the draft law on two main grounds. He said the bill defines wearable recording devices as “too broadly or imprecisely,” which could lead to confusion and unintended consequences. He also noted the proposed bill includes protections that already exist in California law.
His concerns center on scope rather than intent. A vague definition of wearable recording devices could sweep in products far beyond camera-equipped glasses. Without precise language, businesses and users would face uncertainty about what is actually prohibited. The California smart glasses veto reflects those drafting problems rather than a rejection of privacy protection itself.
What SB 1130 Would Have Done
California Senate Bill 1130 sought to prevent people from being recorded in public places without their explicit consent. Had it passed, California would have become the first state to regulate smart glasses directly.
The penalties were serious. Violators could have faced fines or prison time. Wearable makers that did not comply with the rules would have also faced fines. That combination, criminal liability for individuals and financial penalties for manufacturers, made the bill one of the toughest wearable privacy proposals in the country.
The “Pervert Glasses” Controversy
Critics and consumers alike have dubbed the controversial wearables “pervert glasses” following multiple reports of people recording and harassing others. The nickname reflects real anxiety about a world where anyone can film or transcribe a conversation without warning.
The bill’s author, California state senator Eloise Gómez Reyes, was quoted as saying the bill aimed to help California respond to the rapid rollout of always-listening tech. Her framing put the focus on consent. People should know when they are being recorded, especially in public spaces.
Why This Debate Is Growing
The technology is spreading faster than the rules governing it. Meta and Snap both make internet-connected glasses with cameras and microphones that always listen and record everything nearby.
Apple announced last month that its latest Apple Watch software will include an always-listening feature. It allows wearers to replay a transcript of the past 15 seconds and also recap and summarize conversations from the day.
| Device Category | Example | Privacy Concern |
|---|---|---|
| Smart glasses | Meta, Snap | Discreet photo and video capture |
| AI pendants | Various startups | Always-on audio recording |
| Smartwatches | Apple Watch | Conversation recap and transcription |
Each category raises a slightly different question. Glasses hide a camera at eye level. Pendants clip to clothing and listen continuously. Watches now summarize your day. Together, they make constant recording feel normal rather than exceptional.
What Happens Next
The California smart glasses veto does not kill the issue. It sends the bill back to lawmakers, who could revise the definition of wearable recording devices and try again. A narrower, more precise bill might address Newsom’s objections while keeping the consent requirement intact.
For now, California residents have no new state-level protection against secret recording by smart glasses. Companies that make the devices also avoid the fines that non-compliance would have triggered. That leaves the status quo in place as the hardware keeps shipping.
Consumers who care about this issue can still act. Checking privacy settings, watching for recording indicators, and supporting clearer product labeling are practical steps while the law catches up. The California smart glasses veto is a pause, not an ending. The pressure to regulate always-listening tech is only going to grow.
The Bigger Privacy Question
Wearable cameras raise a question the law has not answered. Should recording in public require consent, or is public space inherently open to observation? Courts have long allowed photography in public places. Always-listening devices complicate that principle because they capture audio, not just images.
Audio recording laws already exist in many states, including California. They generally require consent from all parties in certain situations. The vetoed bill tried to extend that logic to wearables. The California smart glasses veto leaves that extension unfinished.
Lawmakers could try again with tighter language. Consumer groups may push for clearer labels on recording devices. Hardware makers may preempt regulation with built-in indicators, such as a light that turns on during recording. Any of these paths could change how the next bill is written.
For readers following this issue, the key takeaway is simple. The proposal failed on wording, not on principle. Smart glasses keep selling, always-listening features keep expanding, and the debate over consent in public spaces is far from settled.
