By: Alexandra Cobb Hains
Louisiana has enacted a new civil notification requirement for recording in-person conversations, driven largely by growing concern over smart glasses and other wearable recording technology. House Bill 410, sponsored by Rep. Laurie Schlegel (R-Metairie), passed the House 54–34 and cleared the Senate before the close of the 2026 Regular Session, and became law as Act No. 965without the Governor’s signature. The new law adds R.S. 9:2790.1 through 2790.4 to Louisiana’s Revised Statutes and takes effect August 1, 2026.
What the Law Does
Louisiana has long been a “one-party consent” state for recordings — meaning that under the Electronic Surveillance Act, it is generally lawful to record a conversation as long as one participant (including the person doing the recording) knows about it. HB 410 does not change that criminal wiretapping framework. Instead, it creates a new, separate civil cause of action layered on top of it.
Under the new law, a person may not use a device to record or transcribe a “direct conversation” — an in-person communication directed to a specific individual, under circumstances where a reasonable person would not expect to be recorded — unless all parties are specifically informed that the conversation is being recorded. This is a notification requirement, not a full consent requirement: the legislature amended earlier drafts to stop short of making Louisiana a true “two-party consent” state.
Violations are civil only. A person who violates the notification requirement can be held liable for damages, court costs, and reasonable attorney’s fees — there is no criminal penalty.
Why Lawmakers Passed It
The bill’s legislative findings point directly at wearable AI devices such as Meta’s smart glasses. Lawmakers cited a rise in secret recordings — often made by so-called “manfluencers” — that were later posted to social media and used to harass the people captured on camera, most often women. The legislature framed the law around a distinction between being overheard in the moment and being permanently, technologically preserved without knowledge or consent, finding that the latter implicates a distinct privacy interest.
Key Exceptions
The statute includes several built-in exceptions where notification is not required:
- Public or semi-public meetings — governmental hearings, press conferences, public speeches, rallies, sporting events, and similar settings.
- Law enforcement activity — recordings made by a peace officer, or someone acting under color of law, in the lawful performance of official duties.
- Emergencies or crime documentation — situations that could capture evidence of a crime.
- Public officials performing official duties in public places where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy.
- Citizens recording police officers performing official duties in a public place, or a place the person has a legal right to be — though this exception does not protect someone who physically interferes with or materially obstructs law enforcement activity.
The law also expressly preserves recording activity protected by the U.S. and Louisiana Constitutions and states that it does not limit, modify, or supersede the Electronic Surveillance Act.
What This Means for Employers
Even though the law is framed as a general privacy statute rather than an employment law, it has direct workplace implications:
- Workplace recordings. Supervisors, HR personnel, and employees who record meetings, disciplinary conversations, or one-on-one conversations — including through smart glasses, phones, or other wearables — should disclose that the conversation is being recorded to avoid civil exposure. This applies whether the employer or the employee is doing the recording.
- Recording and investigation policies. Employers should review handbook policies, investigation protocols, and any standard practices around recording witness interviews, exit interviews, or performance conversations to build in a notification step where the exception categories don’t apply.
- BYOD and wearable device policies. As smart glasses and similar devices become more common in the workplace, employers may want to update acceptable use and device policies to address recording notification obligations.
- Litigation and investigation practicalities. Because the “emergency or crime documentation” and “public officials” exceptions are narrow, employers should not assume that recordings made to build a litigation record or document alleged misconduct are automatically exempt — the analysis is fact-specific.
No criminal exposure, but real civil risk. Because damages, court costs, and attorney’s fees are recoverable, an employer’s exposure isn’t limited to embarrassment — a pattern of non-compliant recording practices could translate into real litigation costs.
bswlaborandemploymentlaw.com 