Secret Filming with AI Glasses Could Land You in Jail! A Crackdown on AI-enabled Covert Recording Is Underway, with A New Bill Taking Decisive Action

Discussions regarding privacy concerns associated with smart glasses have previously tended to focus on calls for regulation or bans in specific settings. Recently, however, lawmakers in California have been advancing a bill—designated SB 1130 (Senate Bill 1130)—aimed at regulating the use of wearable audio and video recording devices in most commercial establishments.

The bill was amended and advanced to the third reading stage on August 26, 2026; as of August 31, it had passed the California State Senate and is currently under consideration by the State Assembly. If enacted, SB 1130 would establish a legal basis for imposing restrictions and penalties regarding wearable devices, such as smart glasses, across California.

It is worth noting that the bill restricts not only smart glasses but also any wearable device equipped with audio or video recording capabilities—such as smart earbuds with cameras or smart brooches.

It is foreseeable that if California’s SB 1130 bill passes, it could trigger a wave of regulations across Europe and the United States aimed at governing and restricting smart wearable devices, with violations potentially leading to imprisonment. Therefore, whether from an industry or individual perspective, it is essential to understand the contents of this bill.

Full text of Bill SB 1130

The text of Bill SB 1130 is brief; Here are the key points:

“First, existing law prohibits the intentional use of electronic amplification or recording devices to eavesdrop upon or record confidential communications without the consent of all parties to the communication, subject to specific statutory provisions. Furthermore, existing law prohibits the unauthorized connection to communication lines or the interception or recording of telephone communications without the consent of all parties involved; it also prohibits trespassing on another person's property for the purpose of committing or attempting to commit the aforementioned prohibited acts. Violations of these provisions are punishable by a fine not exceeding $2,500, imprisonment for a misdemeanor or felony, or both, unless an exemption applies.

If an offender has previously been convicted of violating any of the aforementioned laws—excluding the offense of trespass—a subsequent violation of any of these provisions is punishable by a fine not exceeding $10,000, imprisonment for a misdemeanor or felony, or both.

This bill also prohibits any person from operating a defined wearable recording device to record the audio or video of another person within a commercial establishment in any area where that person has a reasonable expectation of privacy, unless the operator has obtained the express consent of the person being recorded.”

Secondly, this Act also prohibits any person from disabling any light, sound, or other indicator on a wearable audio or video recording device that signals the device is recording audio or video.

This Act provides exemptions for the use of hearing aids, augmentative and alternative communication devices, and similar equipment by individuals with hearing impairments or communication disorders, provided the purpose is to overcome such impairments—such as by reproducing sounds audible to the human ear or facilitating communication with others.

Furthermore, exemptions apply when such devices or technologies are used to assist individuals with disabilities in participating in daily activities or to meet functional needs arising from a disability or medical condition.

Violations of these provisions are punishable by a fine of up to $1,500, imprisonment as a misdemeanor, or both. The Act also stipulates that the aforementioned exemptions apply to violations of these prohibitions.

By establishing a new criminal offense, the Act mandates the implementation of a state-led local program.

Third, this Act shall take effect on January 1, 2028, and prohibits any person or entity from manufacturing, selling, delivering, possessing, or offering for use in commercial activities any wearable audio-video recording device that is not equipped with a light, sound, or other indicating mechanism that is sufficiently conspicuous to alert a reasonable person in the vicinity to the fact that recording is taking place.

Furthermore, the Act prohibits any individual or entity from manufacturing, selling, delivering, possessing, or offering commercially available technology—where the primary purpose, primary market positioning, or likely primary use is to enable a user to disable the lights, sounds, or other indicators on wearable audio/video recording devices that signal recording is in progress.

The Act also prohibits any person from purchasing, exchanging, otherwise acquiring, or using such technology, subject to the specific provisions set forth therein. Knowing violations of these regulations are subject to a civil penalty of up to $2,500 per violation...

In summary, penalties apply to actions such as recording audio or video without consent in locations specified by the Act, intentionally obscuring a device's indicator, or manufacturing and selling wearable AI devices that lack such indicators.

Explanation of specific concepts

You may have many questions after seeing the various terms mentioned above. Rest assured—the latter part of the bill explains some of the concepts found in the main text. We will highlight and explain the key points for you:

What are wearable audio and video recording devices?

SB 1130 defines "wearable audio or video recording devices" as "any device designed to be worn on or attached to the body—rather than held in the user's hand—that is capable of recording audio or video, or transmitting audio or video to another device or the Internet."

This definition could encompass a wide range of devices beyond just AI glasses. The "rather than held in the user's hand" clause is a recent amendment, likely indicating that lawmakers intended to exclude smartphones, which are generally not designed to be worn on or attached to the body and are typically held by the user.

Additionally, wearable audio or video recording devices do not include body-worn cameras used by public officials or law enforcement officers in the performance of their duties.

What is a commercial establishment?

SB 1130 defines a "commercial establishment" as "any physical office or retail location where the public obtains goods or services from a business."

What constitutes a reasonable expectation of privacy?

The answer remains unclear, and a definitive, absolute definition may never be possible. While walking on a public sidewalk in California generally does not give rise to a reasonable expectation of privacy regarding visual observation, California law often affords greater protection than many other states when it comes to the recording of conversations, targeted or technologically enhanced surveillance, and the disclosure of private facts—even when these activities occur in spaces that are technically "public." The specific context, the nature of the information, and the technology employed are all crucial factors.

This is likely why Senate Bill (SB) 1130 specifically targets "commercial premises where others have a reasonable expectation of privacy," rather than attempting to regulate all recording in public spaces.

What is capture?

Capture refers to collecting and storing another person's audio or video, or collecting and transmitting another person's audio or video to any other person. "Capture" does not include the temporary processing of audio or video where such processing does not result in the audio or video being stored or transmitted to another person.

Is it illegal to film law enforcement officers?

Photographing, audio-recording, or video-recording public officials or law enforcement personnel in a public place—provided the official is in a public area or the person doing the recording is in a location they are legally entitled to access—does not in itself constitute a violation of the law; nor does it provide reasonable suspicion to detain the individual, let alone sufficient grounds for arrest.

Do companies that manufacture AI glasses or headsets, or provide related software services, bear liability?

The Act does not impose liability on an entity solely because it manufactures wearable audio-video recording devices or provides software or services for processing, storing, or transmitting content recorded by such devices.

However, an entity incurs liability under the relevant provisions if it manufactures, sells, delivers, possesses, or offers commercially available technology where the primary purpose, primary market positioning, or likely primary use of such technology is to enable a user to disable the lights, sounds, or other indicators on a wearable audio-video recording device that signal the device is recording audio or video.

Is it illegal to wear or use such devices as part of one's job?

The bill excludes the following from its definition of "wearable audio or video recording devices": "headsets, two-way radios, or similar devices operated by employees during the normal performance of their job duties and provided by the employer for that purpose."

This description likely encompasses roles such as call center representatives and certain fast-food order takers. While this narrows the bill's scope to some extent, SB 1130 also stipulates that employees using such devices to record a customer's voice or image must inform the customer that they are being recorded.

Consequently, beyond assessing the impact of cutting-edge technologies entering the workplace, some employers may also need to re-examine how their staff use traditional recording equipment once the bill is enacted.

"Wearables" are not beyond the law.

In the past year or two, the rapid advancement of wearable smart devices and large-scale AI models has enabled some users to bypass existing laws and regulations, flagrantly infringing upon the privacy of others. However, the introduction of various regulations—such as Bill SB 1130—indicates that legislative bodies are catching up and bringing this fast-growing product category under regulatory oversight.

In July 2026, New York became the first U.S. state to ban the use of AI smart glasses in all state courts. England and Wales followed suit in August 2026, with HM Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) announcing that AI glasses carried by anyone entering court buildings would be confiscated.

The BBC previously reported an incident where a 21-year-old woman was approached by a man asking for her phone number, unaware that he was recording the entire interaction using AI glasses. The man posted the surreptitiously recorded video on TikTok, where it garnered 1.3 million views; subsequently, the woman was subjected to a barrage of harassing messages and phone calls.

In fact, the man had posted dozens of similar covertly recorded videos on TikTok. Furthermore, many influencers have used such content to sell courses, teaching other men—who pay for the instruction—techniques on how to approach women.

The UK has also seen its first criminal prosecution involving smart glasses: a man pleaded guilty to voyeurism at Warrington Magistrates' Court after using smart glasses to record a sexual encounter without the woman's consent.

In short: the realm of "wearables" is not beyond the reach of the law. The greater the convenience and capability of a device, the greater the responsibility that comes with it.

Source: VRAR Planet