Newsom agrees smart glasses need privacy rules—just not the ones California lawmakers wrote

A phone pointed at a stranger is hard to miss. A camera tucked into a pair of glasses is another story—and lawmakers are trying to decide how much warning the person on the other side of the lenses should get.

In California, that warning won’t be coming anytime soon. Last month, California Gov. Gavin Newsom vetoed a bill that would have required prominent recording indicators on wearable devices sold in the state beginning in 2028. It would also have prohibited disabling those indicators and made it a misdemeanor to record people without explicit consent in physical places of business like offices and retail stores where they reasonably expect privacy. 

California is home to several companies betting on smart glasses, but those companies, like Meta and Snap, are also raising privacy questions for people who never chose to wear them. Lawmakers want stronger protections against unnoticed recording, while Newsom argues that the proposed rules would reach too far into other everyday technology.

Newsom acknowledged that reports of invasive uses of the technology “demand a legislative response.” But in his veto message, he argued that the bill could sweep in smartwatches and other everyday devices, while duplicating existing privacy protections. Asked whether he would support a narrower proposal, his office referred Fortune back to the message, saying it “speaks for itself.”

Meanwhile, tech companies are working to make smart glasses a familiar sight—even Iron Man has been recruited to help. Snap, Snapchat’s California-based parent company, told Fortune its collaboration with Robert Downey Jr. goes “well beyond a traditional endorsement,” with the actor helping develop new experiences for its Specs augmented-reality glasses.

And for smart-glasses heavyweight Meta, sales topped 7 million pairs last year, according to eyewear partner EssilorLuxottica. But with wider adoption comes more encounters with people who may not recognize the devices or know when they are recording. 

What Newsom rejected 

Authored by State Sen. Eloise Gómez Reyes, the bill would have required light, sound, or other indicator prominent enough to alert a reasonable person nearby when a wearable device was capturing sound or video. It also targeted technology designed to disable those safeguards.

Violating the recording or indicator-disabling provisions could have brought up to a year in county jail, a fine of up to $1,500, or both. Knowing violations of the device-sale requirements could have triggered civil penalties of up to $2,500. The bill also included exemptions for certain uses of assistive technology by people with disabilities.

Newsom’s objection centered on how those rules were written. Including certain smartwatches and other commonly worn devices capable of recording, he wrote, could create “significant confusion and unintended consequences.”

The governor also pointed to existing laws criminalizing recording people in places where they reasonably expect privacy and recording confidential communications without consent. Those protections remain in place despite the veto.

TechNet, a bipartisan network and trade association of tech CEOs and senior executives whose members include Meta, Google, and Amazon, opposed the legislation, arguing that existing laws already address unlawful recording, according to the Associated Press.

Reyes’s office did not respond to Fortune’s questions about whether she plans to reintroduce the legislation or has discussed a revised proposal with the governor’s office.

Other states are pursuing their own rules. Louisiana enacted a law this year requiring smart-glasses users to notify people in direct conversations when they are recording or transcribing, with certain exceptions. A Pennsylvania House committee advanced a bill this month requiring visible recording indicators and prohibiting devices from using a nonuser’s biometric data to identify them.

A light on the frames

For now, the main warning a bystander gets is a small white light on the frames. On Meta’s glasses, it flashes whenever the wearer captures a photo or video for their gallery, and there’s no off switch. Second-generation models also shut off the camera if they detect the light is blocked, according to the company’s published explanation of its safeguards. 

That explanation, posted in July, also announced measures to detect tampering with or destruction of the indicator. The company says it removes ads and Marketplace listings for services that disable the light, and can ban accounts or pursue legal action against providers. Weeks later, it closed a loophole that let users start recording and then cover the light. Now the camera stops if the LED is blocked mid-recording.

Instagram, also owned by Meta, has cracked down on harassing videos filmed with smart glasses. California’s proposal aimed earlier in that process: making sure people know a camera is running before the footage ends up online. The legislative question is whether safeguards like Meta’s should be required by law, and which devices should be covered. Meta did not respond to a request for comment in time for publication.

As Thorin Klosowski, a security and privacy activist at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, previously told Fortune, “I hope that there is not just a general giving up toward the inevitability of everyone having a camera strapped on their face all the time.”

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com