Key Takeaways:
- The Meta smart glasses ban shows that UK courts are prioritising courtroom integrity over wearable-tech convenience.
- Privacy concerns are becoming a major obstacle for Meta’s smart glasses.
- Smart glasses are entering a regulatory grey area
Courts across England and Wales have banned Meta’s smart glasses from judicial buildings, citing concerns over covert recording, privacy and the integrity of court proceedings.
Under the new policy, anyone arriving at a court or tribunal wearing Meta’s camera-equipped glasses will be required to hand them over at the entrance. The devices will be returned when the person leaves. The Meta smart glasses ban applies across criminal, civil and family courts and tribunals.
The move comes as wearable technology increasingly combines cameras, microphones and artificial intelligence in devices that resemble ordinary eyewear. While existing court rules already prohibit unauthorised photography and video recording, authorities have taken a more direct approach with smart glasses because recording can take place without the wearer visibly handling a conventional device.
Smartphones remain permitted under existing courtroom rules, subject to restrictions on recording proceedings. Meta’s glasses, however, will not be treated in the same way. Their ability to capture audio and video while remaining on the wearer’s face has raised concerns about whether court staff can reliably determine when recording is taking place.
The decision also comes amid broader questions about how existing privacy laws should apply to AI-powered wearable technology. UK authorities have previously indicated that existing laws can address misuse involving camera-equipped smart glasses, rather than introducing technology-specific legislation.
Courtroom Incident Highlights New Risks
The Meta smart glasses ban follows a courtroom incident earlier this year that highlighted another potential risk associated with smart glasses: their ability to facilitate outside assistance while someone is giving evidence.
During a High Court case involving the directorship of a property company, claimant Laimonas Jakštys was accused of wearing smart glasses while giving evidence. Judge Raquel Agnello KC raised concerns that he appeared to have been assisted or coached during cross-examination.
Jakštys denied using the glasses to receive answers and also denied that the device was connected to his phone. He was ultimately instructed to remove the glasses.
The incident demonstrated why wearable technology could present challenges that are different from those associated with smartphones. A phone is generally visible and requires a person to interact directly with it, while smart glasses can remain in place throughout testimony and potentially connect to other digital services.
The concerns are not limited to the UK. In the United States, members of Meta chief executive Mark Zuckerberg’s security team were reportedly seen wearing the glasses during a California trial. A judge warned that recording court proceedings could result in contempt of court.
New York courts have also introduced restrictions on smart glasses, reflecting growing concern that traditional courtroom rules may not adequately address devices that combine cameras, microphones, connectivity and artificial intelligence.
Privacy Backlash Intensifies as Smart Glasses Spread
The Meta smart glasses ban adds to growing scrutiny surrounding Meta’s smart glasses as the technology becomes increasingly mainstream.
Meta sold approximately 7 million pairs of its smart glasses last year. The devices combine conventional eyewear with cameras, microphones and AI capabilities, allowing users to take photographs, record video and interact with digital assistants without reaching for a smartphone.
That convenience has also become the centre of a growing privacy debate. Critics argue that people nearby may not always realise they are being recorded, particularly because the devices can resemble conventional glasses.
Several businesses and venues in the UK, including restaurants, pubs and theatres, have reportedly introduced restrictions on the glasses. The concerns extend beyond the possibility of recording itself, with critics questioning how consent and privacy should work when cameras become embedded into everyday objects.
Meta has said its glasses feature a visible recording light that signals when the camera is active. The company has also introduced technology intended to prevent users from disabling or concealing the indicator.
The controversy is now attracting attention outside Britain. A German digital rights group recently filed a criminal complaint concerning Meta’s AI glasses, arguing that the technology could enable covert filming. German authorities are examining the complaint.
For courts, the issue is ultimately less about whether smart glasses are inherently unlawful and more about protecting the fairness and integrity of judicial proceedings. By prohibiting the devices altogether, the Meta smart glasses ban in England and Wales removes uncertainty over whether they can be used inside judicial buildings.
The decision could also signal a broader shift in how institutions approach AI-powered wearables. As cameras, microphones and artificial intelligence become increasingly embedded in everyday products, workplaces, businesses and public institutions may face growing pressure to establish clear rules for where and when these devices can be used.
Visit more of our news! CIO Women Magazine
