Smart glasses spark global privacy backlash as bans spread

The rapid spread of AI-powered smart glasses is triggering a worldwide privacy reckoning, with venues banning the devices, courts weighing lawsuits, and Meta ↗ 0.84% preparing to unveil a camera-free model at its Connect conference this week.

Bans Spread From London to Australia

Shipments of smart glasses grew 212% year-over-year in the first half of 2026, according to market research firm Counterpoint Research, with Meta commanding roughly 84% of the market. EssilorLuxottica, which partners with Meta on its Ray-Ban smart glasses, said 7 million pairs were sold in 2025.cnn

But the devices' ability to record video nearly invisibly has fueled a backlash now spanning multiple continents. In London, popular pub chain Wetherspoons J D Wetherspoon plc has prohibited customers from recording with the glasses. "Our instinct was to say, 'turn the cameras off,'" a Wetherspoons spokesperson told CNN. ATG Entertainment, which operates several West End theatres, said audience members caught wearing the devices will be asked to remove them and delete any footage. Anti-smart glasses advertisements have appeared at London bus stations, and the United Kingdom banned the glasses from courtrooms in August.cnn

In Australia, telecom giant Optus is considering restricting smart glasses in its stores and offices. "It's a personal privacy thing," said Optus EGM security and risk Corien Vermaak at a cybersecurity event last week, adding that "restricting them would absolutely be a possibility". Local councils across Sydney, Brisbane, and Melbourne have already banned the glasses at swimming pools and playgrounds. The Australian federal government is also seeking advice on banning smart glasses from government offices.smartcompany

Videos posted on social media showing men appearing to film women without their knowledge have amplified concerns. "The whole notion of consent is kind of disintegrating," Irina Raicu, director of the internet ethics program at Santa Clara University, told CNN.cnn

Lawsuits and the Camera-Free Pivot

A class-action lawsuit filed in March in U.S. federal court alleges that human annotators viewed recordings of people changing clothes, using bathrooms, and handling financial information after footage captured by the glasses was uploaded to Meta's servers to train AI systems. More than 70 plaintiffs have since joined the case, according to the Los Angeles Times. Meta said it disagrees with the allegations and will contest them.reuters+2

In response to the growing scrutiny, Meta has patched an exploit that allowed users to bypass the glasses' recording indicator light. The company says cameras are now disabled if the light is covered or tampered with.cnn+1

Meta is also expected to announce camera-free smart glasses codenamed "Luna" at its Connect 2026 conference, which begins Wednesday. The glasses would rely on six built-in microphones rather than cameras to power AI features, according to a report from The Information. Samsung and Google Alphabet Inc. ↗ 0.78% are also expected to debut jointly developed smart glasses this fall, with a tamper-resistant privacy light.lifehacker+2

The Fundamental Tension

Experts say the core challenge remains unresolved: AI devices become more useful as they collect more data, but that data often includes footage of people who never consented to being recorded. "It's not always obvious to the consumer what it is they're giving up in terms of privacy," said Ryan Clarkson, whose firm represents consumers suing Meta.reuters

Advocacy groups have warned that overregulation could harm those who depend on smart glasses as accessibility tools. The UK's Royal National Institute of Blind People said the technology helps visually impaired users with daily tasks like reading street signs and browsing menus. A Meta spokesperson called the glasses "critical new technology" for visually impaired consumers.cnn

"As a society, we want to make sure there's consent and awareness when people are being recorded," said Jitesh Ubrani, a director at research firm IDC. "That's different from being opposed to recording altogether".reuters