California Gov. Gavin Newsom has vetoed legislation that would have made it a crime to secretly record people using AI-powered smart glasses in places like changing rooms and doctors' offices, even as sales of the devices surge across the state. The move strikes down what supporters called the nation's first bill of its kind, just as companies like Meta and EssilorLuxottica report selling millions of the camera-equipped frames.
What SB 1130 Would Have Done
The vetoed measure, known as SB 1130, would have made it a misdemeanor to use a wearable recording device to capture someone's sound or video without consent in places where they had a reasonable expectation of privacy, according to the Springfield News-Sun. The bill also would have required companies making smart glasses and other wearable devices to include a light or feature signaling that recording was underway, and it would have banned technology designed to conceal that signal. Violators could have faced prison time or fines up to $1,500, while companies selling noncompliant devices could have been fined up to $2,500, per the same report.
California already bars recording someone without consent in spaces generally considered private, and the state is one of about a dozen that require both parties' consent before a conversation can be recorded by audio or video. The bill's author, state Sen. Eloise Gómez Reyes, said her proposal was designed to clarify that those existing privacy protections applied to smart glasses specifically and to make it easier for people to detect when they were being recorded.
Newsom's Reasoning and Industry Pushback
In explaining the veto, Newsom said the bill's definition of a wearable recording device was too broad, per the Springfield News-Sun's reporting. TechNet, which represents executives from Meta, Google and Amazon, argued SB 1130 would have been unfair to businesses and customers, while Robert Boykin said California already has extensive laws governing unlawful recording and that the bill was not the right approach, according to the same report.
Meta, for its part, pointed to a different use for the technology: the company said it has provided smart glasses to blinded veterans to help them read documents and identify objects, and said it is committed to prioritizing privacy while building the technology, the Springfield News-Sun reported. Reyes countered that the legislation would have helped California respond to the technology's rapid growth and said, “Whatever we can do to protect an individual's right to privacy, we have to do,” according to the outlet's reporting.
A Booming Market for AI Glasses
The veto lands as the hardware at the center of the debate becomes mainstream. Meta Ray-Bans rolled out in 2021 and sold more than 7 million AI-powered devices last year, per the Springfield News-Sun. EssilorLuxottica, which makes the Ray-Ban and Oakley branded glasses, confirmed similar figures, telling CNBC that it sold over 7 million AI glasses last year, up from just 2 million combined in 2023 and 2024. The company said the jump is the latest sign that adoption of wearable AI devices is gaining momentum with consumers, CNBC reported. Meta separately said it sold roughly 7 million pairs of Meta Glasses in 2025 alone, according to The Guardian.
Each pair of Meta Glasses includes an LED light meant to signal when the device is recording, the Guardian reported. But the same reporting found that vendors such as Ghost Metas specialize in disabling that flashing LED, with the operator behind the service saying he's modified about 100 pairs of glasses, with each job taking roughly 15 to 20 minutes. The Guardian also reported that people have used Meta Glasses to record and post interactions involving women online, often without the subjects' consent.
Stories That Fueled the Push for Regulation
The debate over SB 1130 was shaped partly by accounts of secret filming surfacing in consumer reporting. Consumer Reports referenced a TikTok video about a woman who realized her wax technician was wearing smart glasses during an appointment, according to the Springfield News-Sun. The same report described a woman named Aniessa Navarro who was told the smart glasses pointed at her were not on, and another woman at a gym who was secretly filmed with smart glasses and then harassed online after the footage was uploaded to social media. Reyes said those kinds of stories are enough to cause alarm and that action is needed as soon as possible, per the outlet's reporting.
Justin Brookman said wearable smart devices make recording far less obvious than filming with a phone or camera, according to the Springfield News-Sun, a dynamic that privacy advocates say is at the heart of why existing consent laws may not be enough. Massachusetts and Pennsylvania both require permission from the other person before recording a conversation, the same reporting noted, underscoring that California is not alone in grappling with how older wiretapping-style laws apply to face-mounted cameras.
How California's Fight Fits a Broader Pattern
California's veto comes as other jurisdictions have moved to restrict the technology in specific settings rather than regulate it broadly. In July 2026, New York became the first state to prohibit AI-enabled smart glasses in all state courthouses, according to the National Law Review. England and Wales followed the next month, with His Majesty's Courts & Tribunals Service announcing that AI glasses would be confiscated from people entering judicial buildings, the legal publication reported.
It's a markedly different outcome from the last time wearable cameras tried to go mainstream. Google released Google Glass but discontinued the product in 2015 amid public backlash, and Snapchat's Spectacles never gained broad acceptance, the Guardian reported. With AI glasses now selling in the millions rather than fizzling out, California lawmakers and tech companies appear headed for further clashes over how to govern cameras that people wear on their faces.
