Technology 5 min read By Bethany Hadley
Newsom vetoes California bill on smart glasses recording indicators
California Governor Gavin Newsom has vetoed a bill requiring visible recording indicators on smart glasses and wearable devices, arguing it was too broadly written, while acknowledging invasive uses demand a legislative response.
California Governor Gavin Newsom has vetoed a bill that would have required prominent recording indicators on wearable devices sold in the state from 2028. The legislation would also have banned disabling those indicators and made it a misdemeanour to record people without explicit consent in offices and retail stores where they reasonably expect privacy. The veto leaves the question of how much warning bystanders should get from camera-equipped glasses unresolved.
Newsom acknowledged that reports of invasive uses of the technology “demand a legislative response”. In his veto message, however, he argued that the bill could sweep in smartwatches and other everyday devices while duplicating existing privacy protections. He wrote that including certain smartwatches and other commonly worn recording devices could create “significant confusion and unintended consequences”. Asked whether he would back a narrower proposal, his office referred Fortune back to the message, saying it “speaks for itself”.
The bill was authored by State Senator Eloise Gómez Reyes. It would have required a light, sound or other indicator prominent enough to alert a reasonable person nearby whenever a wearable device was capturing sound or video, and it targeted technology designed to disable those safeguards. Violations of the recording or indicator-disabling provisions could have brought up to a year in county jail, a fine of up to $1,500, or both. Knowing violations of the device-sale requirements could have triggered civil penalties of up to $2,500. The bill also contained exemptions for certain uses of assistive technology by people with disabilities.
Newsom pointed to existing laws that already criminalise recording people in places where they reasonably expect privacy and recording confidential communications without consent. Those protections remain in place despite the veto. The trade association TechNet, whose members include Meta, Google and Amazon, opposed the legislation on the same grounds, arguing that existing laws already address unlawful recording, according to the Associated Press. Reyes’s office did not respond to questions about whether she plans to reintroduce the bill or has discussed a revised proposal with the governor’s office.
The debate comes as technology companies push smart glasses into everyday use. Snap, the California-based parent of Snapchat, said its collaboration with Robert Downey Jr. goes “well beyond a traditional endorsement”, with the actor helping develop new experiences for its Specs augmented-reality glasses. Meta reportedly sold more than 7 million pairs last year, according to its eyewear partner EssilorLuxottica. Wider adoption, however, means more encounters with people who may not recognise the devices or know when they are recording.
For now, the main warning a bystander receives is a small white light on the frames. On Meta’s glasses the light flashes whenever the wearer captures a photo or video, and there is no off switch. Second-generation models also shut off the camera if the light is detected as blocked, according to the company’s published explanation of its safeguards, posted in July. The company says it removes adverts and marketplace listings for services that disable the light and can ban accounts or pursue legal action against providers. Weeks later it closed a loophole that had allowed users to start recording and then cover the light; the camera now stops if the LED is blocked mid-recording.
Other states are moving in different directions. Louisiana enacted a law this year requiring smart-glasses users to notify people in direct conversations when they are recording or transcribing, subject to certain exceptions. A Pennsylvania House committee advanced a bill this month requiring visible recording indicators and prohibiting devices from using a non-user’s biometric data to identify them. The California debate therefore sits within a broader national question about whether safeguards such as Meta’s should be required by law, and which devices should be covered.
Meta did not respond to a request for comment in time for publication. Thorin Klosowski, a security and privacy activist at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, has said: “I hope that there is not just a general giving up toward the inevitability of everyone having a camera strapped on their face all the time.”
7
