- UK courts will confiscate Meta smart glasses from people entering judicial buildings.
- Restaurants, pubs, theatres and private clubs are also restricting their use.
- Meta sold 7 million pairs last year despite the growing privacy backlash.
The problem facing Meta smart glasses is no longer just about people feeling uncomfortable around a camera they cannot easily see. In England and Wales, the glasses are now facing restrictions in courts, while restaurants, pubs, theatres and private members' clubs are also telling customers not to use them, according to The Guardian report
His Majesty's Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS), which runs criminal, civil and family courts in England and Wales, has confirmed that people entering its buildings with Meta smart glasses will have them confiscated and returned when they leave.
The reason is simple. Recording images or video inside courts is already restricted without official permission, and HMCTS says there is no reason for smart glasses to receive different treatment from other recording devices.
The move puts Meta's glasses in an unusual position. They are sold as everyday wearable technology, but the same ability to record from the wearer's point of view is becoming a problem in places where privacy and evidence rules are particularly strict.
A HMCTS spokesperson said the use of Meta glasses was prohibited because of the existing restrictions on taking images or videos in courts and tribunals. A source told The Guardian that anyone bringing the glasses into a court or tribunal would have them confiscated at the entrance and receive them back when leaving.
Smartphones, meanwhile, can still be taken into court buildings, provided they are not used to record proceedings.
The glasses that courts cannot ignore
Earlier this year, a High Court judge accused a man wearing smart glasses during a case of receiving assistance or coaching while answering questions. The man denied using the glasses to receive answers and also denied that they were connected to his phone.
There is also a recent example from the US. New York's court system has banned smart glasses from its court buildings, saying the move was intended to prevent people from secretly recording proceedings.
The issue has even surfaced around Meta itself. Members of Mark Zuckerberg's security team were seen wearing Meta glasses during a major trial in California earlier this year. The judge warned them of possible contempt of court if they had recorded proceedings.
But courts are only part of the problem.
A growing number of UK hospitality and entertainment businesses are also introducing restrictions. Wetherspoons, restaurants, theatres and private members' clubs have either banned the glasses or told customers that filming is not allowed.
London restaurateur Jeremy King has said he would not knowingly allow any invasion of guest privacy beyond what people can see with their own eyes. Soho House has also confirmed that filming is not permitted inside its private clubs and staff can ask people wearing the glasses to remove them.
That creates a difficult balancing act for Meta.
The company has been pushing smart glasses as a mainstream wearable device, with sales reaching around 7 million pairs globally last year. Depending on the model, the glasses cost roughly £269 to £469, and Meta has expanded the range with different designs and celebrity collaborations.
Yet the more popular the glasses become, the more likely they are to turn up in places where people may not want to be filmed.
From wearable tech to privacy headache
The biggest concern is that the glasses look much like ordinary spectacles while carrying cameras that can record what is in front of the wearer.
Meta says there are safeguards. Each pair has a capture LED that lights up when recording, and the company says the light cannot be switched off. It also uses tamper detection technology intended to stop the camera from recording if the light is covered or damaged.
That has not stopped the privacy debate.
The glasses have picked up the nickname "pervert glasses" online after reports of people using them to record women without their consent, including for so-called pickup-artist content. One woman told the BBC that a man recorded her and later demanded payment to remove the footage.
Instagram head Adam Mosseri has also said the platform will remove harassment content filmed using the devices.
The issue is therefore becoming less about whether the glasses can record discreetly and more about whether people around the wearer can reasonably know when they are being recorded.
That distinction matters in a restaurant, a private club or a theatre. It matters even more inside a courtroom, where unauthorised recording can have legal consequences.
HMCTS does not keep figures on how many incidents involving smart glasses have taken place in courts, so it is difficult to measure how widespread the problem actually is.
For Meta, there is another complication. The glasses are becoming more successful at exactly the same time that businesses are becoming more cautious about them.
The company has sold millions of pairs, but their growing presence could mean more venues decide that ordinary recording rules are not enough.
The result could be a strange future for smart glasses. The technology may be perfectly legal to own and wear, yet increasingly unwelcome in the places where people spend much of their daily lives.
For Meta, the challenge may no longer be convincing people that the glasses are useful. It could be convincing everyone around the wearer that they are safe to have in the room.
