Newsom vetoes California's smart-glasses recording-light mandate over how the bill defined a wearable

Aniessa Navarro was getting a wax when she realized her technician was wearing smart glasses, according to a TikTok that Consumer Reports cited in a letter to lawmakers ^[16]. The technician told her the glasses weren't on. Navarro said the experience was still unnerving ^[16].

The industry's version is that the problem is mostly handled. Many wearables already show an indicator while recording, Engadget noted ^[18]. "We're still in the early days of building this technology and we're committed to continuing prioritizing privacy as we build," a Meta spokesperson said ^[14]. Robert Boykin, executive director of TechNet, whose members include executives from Meta, Google and Amazon, said: "California already has extensive laws governing unlawful recording, and as currently written, SB 1130 is not the right approach to addressing these concerns" ^[11].

What users report is different. Consumer Reports also cited a woman who said she was secretly filmed with smart glasses at a gym and harassed online after the video was uploaded to social media ^[17]. Justin Brookman, the group's director of technology policy, said it is harder to tell when someone is recording with a wearable than with a phone or camera ^[15].

Newsom put his objection in product terms. "For example, the bill's definition of 'wearable recording device' could include certain smartwatches or other worn devices widely used in public spaces and capable of recording which could lead to significant confusion and unintended consequences," he wrote ^[9]. The watch example is current. Apple announced last month that its latest Apple Watch software will let wearers replay a transcript of the past 15 seconds and recap the day's conversations ^[19]. AI-powered pendants have launched too, to mixed reactions ^[20].

The letter's two objections lead to different redrafts. A definition can be narrowed, for instance to glasses with cameras. The point about existing law concerns the act of recording ^[3]. It does not address what a device has to show while it records, and AP reported the bill would have been the first of its kind in the nation ^[13]. I'd expect a second version to lead with the hardware rule and a tighter device list. None of the reports says whether Sen. Eloise Gomez Reyes, who wrote the bill, plans to bring one back ^[7]. At the end of the session she said, "The stories are enough to cause alarm, and we need to do something as soon as we can" ^[12].

For a wearables team planning hardware before any redraft, two axes sort the exposure. One is whether a stranger would recognize the device as a recorder. The other is whether the wearer can switch off or cover its indicator. Camera glasses with an indicator the wearer cannot defeat already meet what SB 1130 asked of hardware ^[4]. Glasses whose light can be turned off or covered are the design the bill was written against. Watches and pendants with a visible indicator sit in the gap Newsom named, and their status depends on where the next definition draws the line ^[9]. A device nobody recognizes, with no indicator at all, is exposed under any definition written around recording capability.