What Businesses Need to Know About Wearable Recording Devices

California’s proposed SB 1130 raises a practical question for businesses: how should employers respond when employees, customers, vendors, or visitors use wearable devices that record audio or video in the workplace?

These devices add further complexity to privacy, operational, and compliance concerns. Businesses should stay informed as these laws develop and continue to comply with existing California privacy laws.

What SB 1130 Would Do

California’s proposed SB 1130 would expand the California Invasion of Privacy Act to address wearable recording devices such as smart glasses and body-worn technology. As introduced, the bill would prohibit 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 the operator first obtains explicit consent.

The bill would also prohibit disabling a light or other indicator showing that the device is recording. Commentary on the proposal further notes that the new provisions would likely fall within CIPA’s private right of action, creating potential exposure to statutory damages of $5,000 per violation.

Why This Matters for Businesses

For employers, the issue is broader than whether someone records a conversation. 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 device may capture not only what is said, but what can be seen in the surrounding environment.

That distinction matters under California privacy law. 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), 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.

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, treatment room, finance office, or other restricted-access area. But even in more public-facing areas, recording can create privacy risk when it captures sensitive information visible 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 is not limited to the conversation itself. The surrounding data environment may create 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.

The issue can arise on both the employee side and the visitor side.

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 problems.

For customers, clients, vendors, and visitors, the issue is different but no less real. A person wearing smart glasses during a meeting, transaction, or service interaction may believe he or she is documenting only that event. 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 user’s original intent.

A Recent Reminder: The Zuckerberg Incident

The recent courtroom incident involving Meta glasses is a useful reminder of how these devices are perceived. In February 2026, a judge reportedly threatened Mark Zuckerberg’s entourage with contempt after they wore Meta AI glasses into a courtroom where recording was prohibited, highlighting how seriously decision-makers may react when others cannot easily determine whether recording is occurring.

Practical Steps Businesses Can Take Now

While questions remain about how broadly SB 1130 will be applied, compliance under existing California privacy laws is always a priority for business owners. Compliance measures that should be considered include up-to-date employee and visitor-facing policies, training for managers and front-line staff, physical safeguards like privacy screen filters, and scheduled reviews of industry-specific obligations.

Wearable technology may be moving into everyday business settings faster than the law can fully adapt, but staying vigilant with general privacy law compliance remains the best way to protect your interests.