Compliant Technologies chief executive says the company was "never contacted by any legislator or agency within California" and blames the ban on "lack of knowledge and political bias"
Jeff NiklausFounder and chief executive of Compliant Technologies, the maker of the G.L.O.V.E., in a company question-and-answer video
In a September 22, 2026 question-and-answer video on the Compliant Technologies YouTube channel, asked why the company was banned in California, founder and chief executive Jeff Niklaus said the company was "never contacted by any legislator or agency within California." He said the citizens of California and law enforcement agencies would be hurt because they would "lose a tool that can help them," called the glove "the safest, most humane, deescalatory product probably ever to come along," and attributed the ban to "lack of knowledge and political bias in our opinion."
Responding to
ICE said in its August 2026 sole-source justification that the G.L.O.V.E. is a non-lethal, de-escalation device meant to reduce reliance on higher levels of force, and that ICE has no empty-hand use-of-force device to give its officers.
“We were never contacted by any legislator or agency within California. And at the end of the day, the people that are going to be hurt are the citizens of California and the law enforcement agencies because they're going to lose a tool that can help them. It's amazing to me that no other tools, the safest, most humane, deescalatory product probably ever to come along in our opinion is now taken off the table and no other technologies were whatsoever because of lack of knowledge and political bias in our opinion.”
Original video
Original text
Reporting
Where this statement fits
Can California ban ICE and other federal agents from using electric shock gloves, as AB 2760 does?
On September 29, 2026, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed AB 2760, which bars any law enforcement agency in California, including federal agencies such as U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), from using a wearable electroshock device, meaning a weapon worn as a glove that delivers an electric shock. The law applies to state, local and federal agencies, requires a state Department of Justice study by January 1, 2029, and is repealed on January 1, 2030. It followed ICE's August 2026 sole-source contract of $16,700,640 for G.L.O.V.E. gloves from Compliant Technologies. Newsom and the bill's author, Assemblymember LaShae Sharp-Collins, defend the ban, and Sharp-Collins says the gloves have not been proven safe. First Assistant U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli says California has no jurisdiction over federal agents and that he advised the Department of Homeland Security to disregard the law, and the department says it will not abide by it. Sacramento County Sheriff Jim Cooper, the California State Sheriffs' Association, Republican legislators and the gloves' maker oppose the ban as unwise, and two UC Davis law professors say California likely lacks the power to bind federal officers. The disputed question is whether California can ban federal agents from using electric shock gloves. As of October 1, 2026, no court had ruled on AB 2760, and we found no lawsuit against it.
Source and context
Original video
About this source
A question-and-answer video posted to the Compliant Technologies YouTube channel on September 22, 2026, in which the company's founder and chief executive describes the company's products and answers a question about California's ban. The video is about 25 minutes long.
Original text
About this source
The Senate floor analysis for the third-reading vote. It records that the August 21 Senate amendments deleted the earlier bill and inserted the shock-glove text, and it lists the organizations that supported and opposed the bill as of August 28, including ACLU California Action, the California Immigrant Policy Center and La Defensa in support and the California Police Chiefs Association, the California State Sheriffs' Association, the Peace Officers Research Association of California and Sacramento County Sheriff Jim Cooper in opposition. The linked archive copy is the Legislature's analysis index page, which does not contain the analysis text.
Archived copy (opens in a new tab)Reporting
About this source
Mother Jones report on the signing. It quotes a Department of Homeland Security spokesperson saying the department will not abide by unconstitutional bans, summarizes lawsuits over the gloves, and cites a September 22 video by the manufacturer's chief executive.
Archived copy (opens in a new tab)Before the quotation
Compliant Technologies holds ICE's sole-source contract for the gloves. The legislature had passed the bill on August 31 and sent it to the Governor. An off-camera voice asks him "why did you get banned in California?" immediately before this answer. Mother Jones reported his remarks on September 29.
After the quotation
He adds that if legislators had contacted the company it could have met with a committee and they could have made a more intelligent decision, and that the product is already helping several agencies in California. Newsom signed the bill on September 29. The Senate floor analysis, citing the company's product guide, says the maker warns of risks that increase with longer exposure.
How this statement is classified
The label describes this statement's response within the context above.
Why this label?
Relative to the ban as applied to federal officers, the maker rejects the ban as the product of political bias and ignorance of the product and says Californians and agencies will lose a useful tool. The answer addresses the safety question and says nothing about California's power over federal officers. We used Condemned because he rejects the ban as unwise and uninformed. The closest competing label is Challenges the characterization, because he disputes how the gloves are viewed, but he goes on to reject the ban itself.
- Recorded on
- Published here
More from this case
Read the full caseEssayli tells Newsom California has "no jurisdiction" over federal agents and says he advised DHS to disregard the shock-glove ban
“Governor, we’ve been through this already. If you want to regulate federal agents, you have to win a federal election. Until then, you have no jurisdiction. Accordingly, I have advised DHS to disregard your bill attempting to ban safe and effective less-lethal tools that agents need to escalate dangerous situations.”Read statement
Law professor Kevin Johnson says California has "very limited, if any, powers" over how federal officers are armed
“The state has very limited, if any, powers in dictating to the federal government how its officers are armed”Read statement
Newsom's office says California "cannot dictate federal immigration policy" but can set requirements for law-enforcement practices where federal enforcement operates in the state
“California cannot dictate federal immigration policy. But where federal immigration enforcement operates within California, the state can establish and enforce state-law requirements governing state property, state resources, detention facilities, public records, law-enforcement practices and access to state-administered programs.”Read statement
Cite this record
- Publisher
- The Dispute Index
- Title
- Compliant Technologies chief executive says the company was "never contacted by any legislator or agency within California" and blames the ban on "lack of knowledge and political bias"
- First published
- Last updated
- Permalink
- https://disputeindex.com/events/4165-in-a-september-22-2026-question-and-answer
Last updated marks the most recent saved version of this published statement.
The Dispute Index. "Compliant Technologies chief executive says the company was "never contacted by any legislator or agency within California" and blames the ban on "lack of knowledge and political bias"". First published: 2026-10-01. Last updated: 2026-10-01. https://disputeindex.com/events/4165-in-a-september-22-2026-question-and-answer