CaliforniaWearable recording would need consent where business visitors expect privacy
People would need explicit consent for wearable recording where others expect privacy inside businesses, and devices supplied through California commerce would need alerts starting January 1, 2028.
What it does
Wearable recording in business areas where people reasonably expect privacy would need their explicit consent. Disability support and certain law enforcement or crime-evidence recordings would be exempt. Violations could bring fines or jail.
Starting January 1, 2028, wearable recording devices supplied through California commerce would need noticeable recording alerts. Knowing violations could bring a civil penalty of up to $2,500 per violation.
People would be barred from disabling wearable recording alerts, with disability-support and certain recording exemptions under the criminal rule. Separate rules would ban supplying or acquiring disabling tools and using technology to disable alerts.
Argument forRequiring noticeable recording alerts could help nearby people recognize when wearable devices are capturing their sound or video.
Argument againstUsers could face jail for disabling a recording alert even without recording anyone where they expect privacy, unless an exemption applies.
More detail
People would need explicit consent to record others with wearable devices where those people reasonably expect privacy inside a business. The rule would cover offices and retail businesses serving the public. It would cover storing recordings or transmitting them to another person, but exclude temporary processing without either. Uses that support hearing, communication, or disability needs would be exempt, along with certain law enforcement recordings and recordings to gather evidence reasonably believed to concern specified crimes. Recording an officer in public or from a place the recorder has a right to be would not alone violate this rule. Official-duty officer cameras, employer-provided work headsets and radios, and traditional wireless headphones would be excluded. Employers intentionally recording customers through work headsets or radios would have to tell them. Violations could bring up to $1,500 per violation, up to one year in county jail, or both. The new rule would not allow individuals to sue violators.
People and businesses would have to provide noticeable recording alerts on wearable recording devices supplied through California commerce. The requirement would cover making, selling, delivering, holding, or offering for sale devices designed to be worn or attached to the body that can record or transmit sound or video. A light, sound, or other alert would have to be noticeable enough to tell a reasonable person nearby that recording is happening. Official-duty officer cameras, employer-provided work headsets and radios, and traditional wireless headphones or earphones would be excluded. Knowing violations could bring a civil penalty of up to $2,500 per violation. The device-alert requirement would begin January 1, 2028, if the bill became law.
People would be barred from disabling wearable recording alerts, and suppliers would be barred from providing tools mainly meant to disable them. California suppliers could not provide tools mainly designed, marketed, or likely used to disable recording alerts. People in California could not buy, trade for, or otherwise acquire those tools. The criminal rule would exempt disability-support uses and the applicable law enforcement and crime-evidence recordings. Its penalties would be up to $1,500 per violation, up to one year in county jail, or both. Separate rules would bar using any technology to disable an alert temporarily or permanently when the device would otherwise signal recording. Knowing violations would carry civil penalties up to $2,500 per violation. Official-duty officer cameras, employer-provided work headsets and radios, and traditional wireless headphones or earphones would be excluded.
Where do you stand?
Choose your position
Tell your reps
Take a position to see your representatives and ways to contact them.
Where it stands
- Introduced
- Passed Senate
- Passed Assembly
- To Governor
- Became Law
Looking ahead
No hearings or votes scheduled.
History
- 2026
- Sep 30In Senate. Consideration of Governor's veto pending.Latest
- Sep 30Vetoed by the Governor Gavin Newsom.Major
- Sep 9Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 2 p.m.To Governor
- Aug 31Assembly amendments concurred in. (Ayes 29. Noes 10.) Ordered to engrossing and enrolling.Major
- Vote recorded Unfinished Business SB1130 Reyes Concurrence. Result: pass.Upper
- Vote recorded SB 1130 Reyes Senate Third Reading By Bauer-Kahan. Result: pass.Lower
- Aug 30In Senate. Concurrence in Assembly amendments pending.
- Aug 30Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 57. Noes 14. Page 6942.) Ordered to the Senate.Passed Assembly
- Aug 26Ordered to third reading.Minor
- Aug 26Read third time and amended.Major
- Aug 26Joint Rule 61(b)(16) suspended. (Ayes 61. Noes 0. Page 6562.)
- Aug 21Ordered to third reading.Minor
- Aug 21Read third time and amended.Major
- Aug 21Assembly Rule 69(b)(1) suspended. (Ayes 55. Noes 17. Page 6296.)
- Aug 17Read second time. Ordered to third reading.Minor
- Aug 13Read second time and amended. Ordered to second reading.Major
- Vote recorded Do pass as amended. Result: pass.Lower
- Aug 13From committee: Do pass as amended. (Ayes 11. Noes 1.) (August 13).Major
- Aug 13Assembly Rule 63 suspended.
- Aug 5August 5 set for first hearing. Placed on suspense file.
- Jul 2From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 8. Noes 2.) (July 1). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.Minor
- Jul 1
- Vote recorded Do pass and be re-referred to the Committee on [Appropriations]. Result: pass.Lower
- Jun 25From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on P. & C.P.Major
- Jun 24From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on P. & C.P. (Ayes 7. Noes 2.) (June 23). Re-referred to Com. on P. & C.P.Minor
- Jun 23
- Vote recorded Do pass and be re-referred to the Committee on [Privacy and Consumer Protection]. Result: pass.Lower
- Jun 16From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on PUB. S.Major
- Jun 4Referred to Coms. on PUB. S. and P. & C.P.Minor
- May 27In Assembly. Read first time. Held at Desk.Minor
- Vote recorded 3rd Reading. Result: pass.Upper
- May 27Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 30. Noes 8. Page 4504.) Ordered to the Assembly.Passed Senate
- May 26Read second time. Ordered to third reading.Minor
- May 22Ordered to second reading.Minor
- May 22Read third time and amended.Major
- May 18Read second time. Ordered to third reading.Minor
- May 14Read second time and amended. Ordered to second reading.Major
- Vote recorded Do pass as amended. Result: pass.Upper
- May 14From committee: Do pass as amended. (Ayes 5. Noes 2. Page 4266.) (May 14).Major
- May 8Set for hearing May 14.
- May 4May 4 hearing: Placed on APPR. suspense file.
- Vote recorded Placed on suspense file. Result: pass.Upper
- Apr 24Set for hearing May 4.
- Apr 22Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on APPR.Major
- Apr 21From committee: Do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 7. Noes 2. Page 3958.) (April 20).Major
- Apr 20
- Vote recorded Do pass as amended, but first amend, and re-refer to the Committee on [Appropriations]. Result: pass.Upper
- Apr 9Set for hearing April 20.
- Apr 8Re-referred to Com. on P., D.T., & C.P.Minor
- Apr 6Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on RLS.Major
- Mar 26From committee: Do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on RLS. (Ayes 5. Noes 1. Page 3661.) (March 24).Major
- Mar 24
- Vote recorded Do pass as amended, but first amend, and re-refer to the Committee on [Rules]. Result: pass.Upper
- Mar 10Set for hearing March 24.
- Feb 26Referred to Com. on PUB. S.Minor
- Feb 18From printer. May be acted upon on or after March 20.
- Feb 17Introduced. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print.Introduced
AI & PrivacyConsumer ProtectionCriminal Justice