Once upon a time, “smart glasses” seemed like a novelty gimmick that actually worked only in sci-fi movies. But with rapidly growing artificial intelligence capabilities, these gizmos are starting to be taken seriously. And the law around them is trying to catch up.
Recently, that has meant privacy suits over what the glasses really record and new court rules about whether AI‑enabled eyewear can come through the courthouse doors at all.
Litigation over Meta’s AI Goggles
Gina Bartone, of New Jersey, and Mateo Canu, of California, both bought Meta’s AI‑enabled smart glasses after being told they were “designed for privacy” and “controlled by you.” They now lead a proposed nationwide class action against Meta Platforms, which provides the AI hardware and software for the glasses, and Luxottica of America, which owns the Ray‑Ban and Oakley brands that house Meta’s smart‑glasses tech.
The products at issue include multiple Ray‑Ban Meta and Oakley Meta models—such as Ray‑Ban Meta Wayfarer and Oakley Meta HSTN—that look like standard frames but embed ultra‑wide cameras, microphone arrays, and an AI assistant capable of capturing and transmitting video and audio from everyday settings to Meta’s systems.
According to investigative reporting and whistleblower accounts, footage from private spaces does not simply stay on the glasses. Instead, when certain AI features are used, videos are sent to Meta’s servers and then routed to Kenyan data‑annotation contractor Sama. There, workers say they review clips of people undressing, using the bathroom, having sex, and handling financial information – sometimes with faces still visible despite Meta’s promises to remove key identifying details.
The complaint alleges a nationwide class of people who bought the identified Meta smart‑glasses models and invokes the Class Action Fairness Act by pleading an amount in controversy of more than $5 million. Its core idea is simple: Meta and Luxottica sold these glasses on a privacy promise—“designed for privacy, controlled by you,” “built for your privacy and others too”—with marketing that stressed user control, settings, and visual recording indicators. The plaintiffs say those assurances are misleading because they omit the human‑review pipeline behind the scenes.
Legally, they deploy the standard consumer‑protection playbook: state unfair‑competition and false‑advertising statutes, consumer‑fraud laws, plus fraud, negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract and warranty, and unjust enrichment. The plaintiffs are asking for injunctive relief to change how the glasses are marketed and how data is handled, along with money damages, restitution, disgorgement, statutory penalties, and attorneys’ fees
The through‑line is that privacy‑centric messaging created a duty to tell buyers their footage could be watched by strangers, and that hiding that fact turned “privacy‑first” eyewear into a surveillance device. That fight is playing out in the civil courts. But judges and court administrators aren’t waiting for a verdict to decide how they feel about AI‑enabled eyewear in their own buildings.
How Courts are Keeping the Glasses Out
New York’s court system has now drawn one of the clearest lines in the sand. In a July 1 memo, the New York State Unified Court System announced that, starting July 20, “smart glasses i.e., eyewear or headwear containing a camera, microphone, computer or other technology that permit the user to record video or audio” are prohibited inside any UCS facility. The ban applies whether the glasses are prescription or non‑prescription. It covers everyone entering more than 1,240 state, county, city, town and village courthouses, from litigants and attorneys to court staff and family members.
The memo is blunt about why: “The reason for this prohibition is to ensure that individuals cannot surreptitiously record court proceedings in violation of the New York State Civil Rights Law and applicable court rules.” Anyone who shows up with smart glasses won’t be admitted unless they “voucher the smart glasses for safekeeping by uniformed personnel while the individual remains in the facility,” effectively treating them like any other banned recording device at the security checkpoint.
New York may be the first state to impose a blanket ban of smart glasses in the judiciary, but it’s not the only one. Court systems in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Hawaii have already adopted similar restrictions on smart glasses, even if they’re not yet statewide across every court.
What It All Means for Lawyers
For courtroom lawyers, the immediate task is practical and ethical. New York’s memo means smart glasses should be treated like other prohibited recording devices, and clients should be told to leave AI‑enabled eyewear at home or expect to voucher it at security.
For lawyers advising tech companies, AI smart glasses now demand end‑to‑end scrutiny. You need to map what the glasses record, where that data goes, who reviews it, and how long it is kept, then ensure consent, notice, retention, training‑data use, cross‑platform matching, government access, and bias‑testing all align with what the company tells users, so legal and civil‑rights risks are addressed in the design rather than after a crisis.
For privacy and civil‑rights practitioners, AI smart glasses should be seen as part of a growing surveillance infrastructure. The work is to use existing consumer‑protection, fraud, contract, and biometric‑privacy tools to challenge opaque data‑collection and review practices, while pushing for clearer rules on AI eyewear in courts, clinics, workplaces, protests, and other sensitive spaces, and counseling institutions and communities on practical measures—signage, device policies, and local ordinances—that let people refuse being captured, analyzed, and profiled by other people’s smart glasses.
