By Christian J. Scali, Managing Shareholder, Scali Rasmussen What California Businesses Should Know After the SB 1130 Veto Privacy and Wearable Recording Devices Smart glasses and other wearable recording devices are moving into California workplaces. This year the Legislature passed Senate Bill (SB) 1130 to regulate them, and Gov. Newsom vetoed it on Sept. 30, 2026. The practical question for employers remains: How should a business respond when employees, customers, vendors or visitors wear devices that record audio or video on its premises? Wearable recording devices add new layers to privacy, operational and compliance concerns. Until California enacts a wearable-specific law, existing privacy statutes and court decisions govern, and businesses should continue to follow them. What SB 1130 Proposed SB 1130 would have expanded the California Invasion of Privacy Act to address wearable recording devices such as smart glasses and body-worn technology. As passed by the Legislature, the bill would have prohibited a person from using a wearable recording device to capture sound or video of another person in an area within a place of business where that person has a reasonable expectation of privacy, unless that person explicitly consents. The bill would also have made it a separate violation to disable a light or other indicator showing that the device is recording. Beginning Jan. 1, 2028, the bill also required wearable recording devices sold in California to carry a recording indicator prominent enough to alert a reasonable person nearby. The bill exempted, among others, peace officer body-worn cameras, employer-provided communication devices used in normal work duties (with a customer notice requirement if the employer intentionally records a customer), hearing aids and assistive technology. The bill would have been enforced by prosecutors and public enforcers. As reported, a violation of the new section would have been a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of up to $1,500, up to one year in county jail, or both. A knowing violation of the manufacturer requirements would have carried a civil penalty of up to $2,500 per violation. The bill reportedly created no private right of action. 18
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTg3NDExNQ==