Privacy Concerns about Smart Glasses Catch Legislators’ Eyes

Smart glasses, like Ray-Ban Meta frames, allow wearers to take photos and videos, listen to music and make calls without ever picking up a phone.

The technology, however, can also permit users to record others without them noticing and that has begun to worry some state legislators.

This year lawmakers in California and Louisiana have introduced legislation addressing burgeoning privacy concerns over smart glasses and other wearable devices.

California’s SB 1130, the Wearable Device Privacy Protection Act by Sen. Eloise Gómez Reyes (D), would update the Golden State’s privacy laws by creating a brand-new crime: using a wearable device to capture audio or video of another person at a place of business where there’s a reasonable expectation of privacy without explicit consent.

The current version of the bill would also ban anyone from disabling any light or other indicator on a wearable recording device that shows it is capturing audio or video, as well as prohibit the manufacture, sale, acquisition, and use of technology that allows the disabling of such an indicator.

“Californians have a constitutional right to privacy, and our laws must evolve as quickly as technology, to prevent harm,” Reyes said in a press release. “Secretly recording someone under the guise of prescription-style glasses—especially when many people don’t even know this technology exists—has real consequences. We have an obligation as lawmakers to put a stop to it.”

A spokesperson for Meta told WIRED magazine, “Our terms of service clearly state that users are responsible for complying with all applicable laws and for using Ray-Ban Meta glasses in a safe, respectful manner.” He added that “as with any recording device, people shouldn’t use them for engaging in harmful activities like harassment, infringing on privacy rights, or capturing sensitive information.” He also pointed out that the company’s glasses have an LED recording light that makes it “unequivocally clear that content is being captured.” But WIRED noted that “the internet abounds with simple guides on how to keep recording while the light is covered.”

Louisiana’s HB 410 by Reps. Laurie Schlegel (R) and Kathy Edmonston (R) takes a different approach than California’s measure, prohibiting an in-person participant in a conversation where there’s a reasonable expectation of privacy from using a portable device to record the conversation without notifying all parties involved.

The measure, which has already been passed by the House, includes a number of exceptions. For example, it would not apply to public or semi-public meetings; law enforcement or first-responder activities; recordings made to preserve evidence for civil, administrative, or criminal proceedings; recordings of public officials performing official duties in public places; and lawful recordings of police by private people who are not interfering; as well as recordings of conversations made by nonparticipants or by participants located at their own residences.

But violators of the measure’s provisions would be liable for damages, including court costs and attorneys’ fees.

An article last month in the Greater Baton Rouge Business Report said HB 410 “faces opposition from the Louisiana Press Association, which warns it could hinder journalism and newsgathering, setting up a broader debate over privacy, free speech and the limits of emerging tech.”

The proposal was reportedly introduced in response to the rise of social media posts showing women recorded without their consent. So-called “manfluencers” or content creators preaching misogynistic views secretly record their interactions with women using smart glasses, then post the videos online for others in the “manosphere” to mock.

Lawmakers’ Concerns about Smart Glasses Focus Mainly on Schools

At least 10 states considered bills this year referring to “AI glasses” or “smart glasses,” according to the LexisNexis® State Net® legislative tracking system. Most of the measures, including one enacted in Utah (HB 42), are aimed at prohibiting the use of such glasses in schools. But Louisiana’s smart glasses bill (HB 410) and a measure in California (SB 1130) that refers to “wearable recording devices” rather than “AI glasses” or “smart glasses,” address broader privacy concerns about the devices.

Wearable Devices Pose Host of Privacy and Workplace Concerns

In addition to facilitating harassment, smart glasses and other wearable devices pose new compliance challenges for businesses.

In a December 2025 National Law Review commentary on compliance risks associated with AI smart glasses, attorney Joseph J. Lazzarotti of the firm Jackson Lewis PC wrote that facial recognition, voiceprint capture and eye tracking capabilities of some AI glasses could potentially violate biometric-privacy laws.

The commentary pointed to a 2022 class-action lawsuit in which the plaintiffs alleged that beauty brand Charlotte Tilbury violated Illinois’ Biometric Information Privacy Act by using virtual try-on tools that captured facial geometry without proper disclosures or consent. The case was later settled, with Charlotte Tilbury denying wrongdoing. But Lazzarotti argued that similar legal theories could apply to AI glasses that process visual or audio data constituting biometric information.

There are also worries that smart glasses could be used to illegally surveil employees in the workplace, aid in corporate espionage or run afoul of workplace safety regulations.

“While these devices offer numerous benefits, they also present unique legal challenges, particularly in California, where privacy and workplace safety are paramount,” wrote employment attorney Sahara Pynes for the Fox Rothschild law firm blog. “Employers must navigate these issues carefully to ensure compliance with applicable laws and maintain a safe and respectful work environment.”

Privacy concerns don’t end there, either. Meta is facing a federal class-action lawsuit alleging that the company’s advertising of its AI Ray-Ban glasses, using messages like “designed for privacy, controlled by you,” contradicts Meta policy providing for human review of customers’ footage when they share it with Meta AI, which the plaintiffs also claim the company failed to adequately disclose.

Given that the smart glasses market only began taking off in the last few years, driven by strong demand for Ray-Ban Meta frames, it’s not surprising these issues are just beginning to surface. And as we’ve seen with the adoption of new technology in the past, legislators typically step in as soon as an innovation starts to become popular. Smart glasses may be about to do just that. Google has announced that AI glasses from its Android XR partners could be available in 2026. Samsung has also said publicly that AI glasses are part of its roadmap. And Apple is widely reported to be working on its own smart glasses, although the company hasn’t officially announced that.

—By SNCJ Correspondent BRIAN JOSEPH

Visit our webpage to connect with a LexisNexis® State Net® representative and learn how the State Net legislative and regulatory tracking service can help you identify, track, analyze and report on relevant legislative and regulatory developments.