Meta smart glasses and similar wearable recording glasses are legal to own and use in Louisiana, but a new state law can require notice before a participant intentionally uses them to capture certain private, in-person conversations. The rule took effect August 1, 2026. It is narrower than an all-party consent law, and it does not apply to every recording device or every conversation.
Louisiana Act 965 of 2026 enacted R.S. 9:2790.1 through 9:2790.4. The law focuses on a “wearable eyeglass recording device.” Although products such as Ray-Ban Meta glasses fit the ordinary meaning of that phrase, the statute does not identify any brand or manufacturer.
Scroll horizontally to see all columns. Use the arrow keys when the table is focused.
| Question | Answer |
|---|---|
| When did it take effect? | August 1, 2026 |
| What device does it address? | A wearable eyeglass recording device |
| What communication is covered? | A qualifying in-person “direct conversation” |
| What does the law require? | Specific notification to all participants unless an exception applies |
| Does it require consent? | No. The enacted text requires notice, not affirmative permission |
| Does it replace Louisiana’s one-party rule? | No. The Act expressly preserves the Louisiana Electronic Surveillance Act |
| Does Act 965 create a crime? | No. It creates a civil rule and remedy |
The rule applies only to a defined direct conversation
Act 965 defines a direct conversation as an in-person oral communication directed to one or more specific people under circumstances in which a reasonable person would not expect the exchange to be videoed and recorded or transcribed.
That definition matters. A participant’s deliberate capture of a private office conversation through smart glasses is a much clearer example than background audio picked up while walking through a public event. The Act expressly excludes incidental, unintended, or background capture of people in public when the recording is not specifically directed at them.
The prohibition also begins with a participant in the conversation. A nonparticipant is covered by one of the statute’s listed exceptions, although other privacy, surveillance, trespass, or harassment laws may still apply. Act 965 should not be read as a blanket license for bystanders to record anything they want.
Notice and consent are different
R.S. 9:2790.3 says the participant may not intentionally use the glasses to video and record or transcribe the direct conversation unless all participants are specifically notified. The enacted text does not say that each person must agree.
A clear spoken statement such as “These glasses are recording our conversation” is more useful than relying on a small light or assuming that everyone recognizes the device. The statute does not prescribe exact words, a written form, or a required amount of advance notice. Until courts interpret the new law, a person who plans to record should make the notice unmistakable and preserve proof that it was given.
If someone objects after receiving notice, Act 965 does not itself convert that objection into a veto. Other rules can still control the setting. An employer, business, courthouse, medical facility, school, or property owner may restrict devices. A lawyer may have professional obligations that go beyond the minimum wording of this statute.
The eleven statutory exceptions
The Legislature included eleven categories in R.S. 9:2790.3(B). The notification rule does not apply to recordings or transcriptions involving:
- public or semi-public meetings;
- law-enforcement activity;
- emergencies and first-responder activity;
- public officials performing public duties, including evidence of corruption or malfeasance;
- an officer performing official duties in public or another place where the recorder has a right to be, so long as the recorder does not interfere with or obstruct the officer;
- preservation of evidence for an actual or anticipated civil or administrative proceeding;
- preservation of evidence of a criminal act or for a criminal proceeding;
- a participant recording in the participant’s own residence;
- recordings or transcriptions in the participant’s own business or employment;
- recordings or transcriptions in the participant’s own vehicle or an employer’s vehicle; and
- a recorder who is not a participant in the conversation.
These exceptions are broad enough to resolve many ordinary situations, but their boundaries will depend on facts. For example, a person should not assume that every disagreement makes litigation “anticipated,” that any workplace is the participant’s “own employment,” or that being inside a shared home answers every privacy question.
Evidence preservation is an important exception, not a reason to overshare
The civil and administrative evidence exception is especially relevant after a crash, assault, insurance dispute, or other event that may lead to a claim. A recording made to preserve evidence can fall outside the notification rule even when the recorder is a participant.
Purpose and timing still matter. Preserve the original file, device information, date, time, and available metadata. Do not trim the clip, add captions that replace the original audio, or post it publicly before preserving an untouched copy. The firm’s Louisiana evidence-preservation resource explains why original digital evidence and chain of custody can matter.
A recording can also be incomplete. Camera angle, muffled audio, missing lead-in, and later statements may change its meaning. The same caution applies to crash statements and other early accounts, as discussed in Crash Statements and Police Report Errors. If surveillance becomes part of a disputed claim, Social Media and Surveillance After a Louisiana Wreck explains why context and preservation matter more than a single selected clip.
Louisiana’s general one-party rule remains in place
Act 965 expressly states that it does not affect the Louisiana Electronic Surveillance Act. Under current R.S. 15:1303, interception is generally not unlawful when the recorder is a party to the communication or one party has given prior consent, unless the interception is made for the purpose of committing a criminal, tortious, or other injurious act.
The two laws therefore need to be read together. Louisiana may permit a participant to record an ordinary conversation under R.S. 15:1303 while Act 965 separately requires notification because the participant intentionally uses wearable recording glasses during a qualifying direct conversation. A phone, handheld camera, body camera, dash camera, and smart glasses are not automatically treated the same under the new chapter.
What a civil claim under Act 965 requires
R.S. 9:2790.4 allows a civil action for damages, costs, and reasonable attorney fees. Its wording also says the claimant must demonstrate actual damages resulting from the intentional unlawful videoing and recording and dissemination.
That phrasing leaves questions for courts. One is whether liability requires both unlawful capture and dissemination, or how the provision applies to transcription without a conventional video file. Another is what proof will establish actual damages. The new law does not set a fixed statutory payment for every violation, and it does not make every technical failure to notify a crime.
A person evaluating a potential claim should preserve the device file, copies, messages showing who received it, platform posts, dates, and evidence of the claimed harm. Deleting or editing the material can make both liability and damages harder to evaluate.
A practical way to approach smart glasses
Before activating a recording feature during an in-person conversation, ask four questions:
- Am I a participant in a directed conversation that a reasonable person would not expect to be recorded or transcribed?
- Am I intentionally using wearable eyeglasses to make the capture?
- Does one of the eleven exceptions clearly fit the facts?
- If no exception clearly applies, have I specifically notified every participant?
When the answer is uncertain, give clear notice or turn the feature off. If the recording may be evidence in a legal matter, preserve the original and get advice before circulating it. The safest analysis is based on the actual setting, participants, purpose, device, and use of the recording, not only the product label.
Bottom line
Smart glasses are not banned in Louisiana. Act 965 instead creates a device-specific notification rule for certain private, directed, in-person conversations. It requires notice rather than consent, contains eleven exceptions, preserves the state’s one-party surveillance law, and creates a civil remedy whose boundaries Louisiana courts have not yet developed.
Sources checked: September 29, 2026. Last reviewed: September 28, 2026.