Gavin Newsom vetoes a CA bill banning secret recording with smart glasses in private places, saying its definition of wearable recording devices was too broad

The broad definition of wearable recording devices could have impacted many common smartwatches and other personal tech, but the bill's veto means these devices will not face new restrictions.

California Governor Gavin Newsom has vetoed a bill, SB-1130, that aimed to ban the secret recording of individuals in private areas of businesses using wearable devices like smart glasses. The bill also proposed mandating indicators on recording devices when active and prohibiting the sale of technology designed to conceal recording functions. Newsom cited concerns that the bill's definition of "wearable recording device" was overly broad, potentially encompassing widely used smartwatches and other common wearable technology, which could lead to confusion and unintended consequences. He noted that California already has laws against recording individuals in areas where they expect privacy and a two-party consent law for audio recordings. The proposed legislation would have imposed fines and potential jail time for secret recording and fines for manufacturers failing to comply with indicator requirements.

Governor Newsom's veto highlights the tension between regulating emerging technologies and avoiding overly broad legislation that could stifle innovation or create widespread confusion. The broad definition of "wearable recording device" raised valid concerns about impacting existing, widely adopted technologies beyond just smart glasses, suggesting a need for more targeted approaches to privacy in the wearable tech space. This decision could embolden tech advocacy groups like TechNet, which opposed the bill, by signaling a preference for less restrictive regulatory frameworks.

The veto implies that existing privacy laws in California may be considered sufficient to address the misuse of wearable recording devices for now, provided enforcement is adequate. However, the governor's acknowledgment that more specific legal language could have deterred privacy violations suggests a potential for future legislative efforts. These would likely need to more precisely define the scope of banned devices and activities, perhaps focusing on intent and the specific nature of the recording technology rather than general device categories.