Meta’s AI-powered smart glasses face a growing privacy maelstrom in the U.K. and U.S. as authorities, venues and customers sound the alarm over secret cameras, shooting without consent and sensitive data collection. With over 7 million pairs sold in 2025 alone, the Ray-Ban Meta smart glasses are some of the most popular products on the planet. But detractors say that they also represent a giant step backward for privacy in public places.
The concerns have prompted investigations on both sides of the Atlantic. In the U.K., the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) has contacted Meta over reports that human contractors reviewing recordings from the devices were exposed to extremely private moments captured by unsuspecting users. In the U.S., a federal class-action lawsuit has been filed accusing Meta of violating privacy policies and making false advertising claims that the glasses are 'built for your privacy' and 'controlled by you.'
'Pervert Glasses' and the Backlash
The backlash has been swift and visceral. The glasses have been dubbed 'pervert glasses' by critics, with reports of women being filmed without their consent and their interactions posted on social media. Activist group Everyone Hates Elon released an ad featuring the late sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein wearing the glasses with the slogan 'glasses for people who don't do consent.' Meta's own attempts to address the problem — including an update that disables the camera if the LED recording light is tampered with — have done little to quiet the criticism.
Meta has acknowledged that some users have been using tape to cover the LED light, and that others have engaged in 'sophisticated efforts to modify or destroy the capture LED.' In other words, the company is confirming that some users have hidden agendas — namely a desire to record people, often women, without their consent.
UK Venues Ban 'Spy Glasses'
In the U.K., the privacy backlash has already translated into real-world consequences. Restaurants, pubs, and theatres have begun banning the glasses, citing concerns over customer and staff privacy. Celebrated restaurateur Jeremy King, owner of London venues including Simpsons in the Strand, said guests should not wear the recording glasses. 'I would never knowingly allow any invasion of guest privacy other than with the eyes we were born with,' he told the Guardian. Pub chain Wetherspoons has also prohibited recording using the glasses inside its venues, with chief executive Tim Martin stating that 'Meta glasses seem to breach this code, and common sense, by enabling surreptitious surveillance.'
ATG Theatres, which owns venues including the Bristol Hippodrome and Edinburgh Playhouse, has said that filming is not allowed and that those wearing the glasses during shows will be asked to remove them. The glasses resemble normal eyewear, with a fashionable cat-eye design featuring tiny cameras embedded, making them difficult to detect.
Human Reviewers and Data Handling
One of the most alarming revelations has been that footage recorded by the glasses can be sent to human reviewers. Reports from Kenya revealed that clickworkers were seeing intimate recordings, including people getting undressed, sitting on the toilet, and even having sex. Meta's terms of service and privacy policy state that videos recorded with the glasses can be sent to subcontractors and human reviewers, but critics argue this is not made clear enough to consumers.
The ICO has criticized Meta for advertising that the smart glasses give 'users control over their data,' arguing that this is apparently not the case and that there is a lack of adequate transparency. Providers must communicate very clearly which data is collected and how it is analyzed and used.
Accessibility Benefits and the Privacy Trade-Off
Despite the backlash, supporters of the glasses point to their life-changing benefits, particularly for people with disabilities. Nikki, a 59-year-old from Devon in the UK who has been blind since birth, describes the glasses as 'a real gamechanger,' using them to navigate her rural surroundings. Others rely on live-caption features for hearing assistance. But advocates worry that public criticism could make the technology less accessible for those who genuinely benefit from it.
As the debate intensifies, regulators on both sides of the Atlantic are under pressure to act. The question remains whether voluntary measures by Meta — including the LED tamper-disabling update and content moderation on Instagram — will be enough to address the fundamental privacy concerns raised by a device that can record anything, anywhere, without the knowledge of those around it.
