The Veto The governor vetoed SB 1130 on Sept. 30, 2026. In the veto message, the governor stated that the bill defines several terms too broadly or imprecisely, noted that its definition of a wearable recording device could reach certain smartwatches and other worn devices, and observed that existing California law already prohibits recording people where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy. He also acknowledged that reports of invasive conduct using wearable technology demand a legislative response. An override requires a two-thirds vote in each house, which the Legislature rarely attempts, so any successor proposal would likely arrive as a new bill in the next legislative session. The veto leaves in place existing law governing recording in the workplace. For instance, Penal Code section 632 prohibits intentionally recording a confidential communication without the consent of all parties. Penal Code section 637.2 allows an injured person to sue for the greater of $5,000 per violation or three times actual damages. Also, Labor Code section 435 separately prohibits an employer from recording employees by audio or video in a restroom, locker room or room designated for changing clothes without a court order. Why This Matters for Businesses For employers, the exposure extends beyond just recorded conversations. A workplace may include reception areas, retail floors, open offices, conference rooms, HR offices, break rooms, healthcare settings, customer service counters and private offices where sensitive information is regularly discussed, displayed and processed. A wearable recording device can capture not only what is said but also what is seen in the surrounding environment. That distinction matters under California privacy law. California courts have repeatedly made clear that privacy is not an all-or-nothing concept. In Sanders v. American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., 20 Cal. 4th 907 (1999), an undercover reporter secretly videotaped conversations at a telepsychic call center. The California Supreme Court held that employees in a nonpublic workplace may still have a limited but legitimate expectation that their interactions will not be secretly videotaped, even if coworkers could have overheard them. In Hernandez v. Hillsides, Inc., 47 Cal. 4th 272 (2009), the Court explained that workplace privacy depends on context, including the nature of the intrusion, the setting and the employee’s reasonable expectations under the circumstances. The Court ruled for the employer in Hernandez because the video surveillance was limited in scope and tied to a legitimate purpose, a point that supports documented, narrowly tailored recording policies. Because SB 1130 did not become law, these common-law privacy decisions continue to provide the governing framework for wearable-device disputes in the workplace. Public Areas vs. Sensitive Areas For businesses, that framework is more useful than a simple “public versus private” label. A retail floor, lobby or reception area is generally more open than an HR office, manager’s office, conference room, finance office or other restricted-access area. But even in more public-facing areas, recording can create a privacy risk when it captures sensitive information that is visible or audible in the background. Consider a smart-glasses recording made during an ordinary customer interaction. The device may capture a driver’s license on a desk, payment information on a monitor, another customer’s account discussion nearby, employee records, confidential business materials or proprietary information visible during the interaction. In that situation, the concern extends beyond the conversation itself. The surrounding data environment may be the greater problem. Why Wearables Are Different Wearable devices present a different challenge than an ordinary phone camera. They may be less noticeable, operate hands-free and make it harder for others to tell whether recording is taking place. That uncertainty alone can create tension in settings where sensitive information is routinely handled. California law does not currently require a visible recording indicator on smart glasses, because the indicator mandate in SB 1130 did not survive the veto. Staff and visitors therefore cannot rely on a light to show whether a device is recording, which strengthens the case for clear written policies and designated no-wearable areas. The issue can arise on both the employee and visitor sides. For employees, wearable devices create concerns in HR settings, management meetings, healthcare environments, finance functions, confidential project discussions and other spaces where personnel, compensation, customer or strategic information is discussed. Even where no improper recording occurs, uncertainty over whether an employee is recording can create immediate operational concerns. For customers, clients, vendors and visitors, the concern takes a different form. A wearer may believe the device documents only the meeting, transaction or service interaction at hand. But the device may also capture another person’s information, documents left in view or screens displaying private data. Depending on the location and circumstances, that may raise privacy concerns independent of the wearer’s original intent. A Courtroom Example: The Meta Glasses Incident On Feb. 18, 2026, Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Carolyn Kuhl reportedly ordered members of Mark Zuckerberg’s team to remove Meta AI glasses they wore into her courtroom at a social media addiction trial. She warned that she would hold them in contempt if they had recorded anything and did not delete it, 19
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTg3NDExNQ==