Commercial

The existence of ‘smart glasses’ is hardly a new concept, from their conceptual roots appearing in early-mid-1900s fiction, to the launch of Google Glass in 2013, which faced backlash so significant that the glasses were pulled from the market by 2015.

However, in a zeitgeist driven by artificial intelligence, the recent rise of artificial intelligence smart glasses is fuelling renewed concern.

In late June, Meta debuted a collaboration with American media personality and entrepreneur Kylie Jenner, showcasing its new collection of AI glasses.

The Meta glasses have a built-in camera, speaker, and microphone, and for a monthly subscription, users can record conversations on a ‘Conversation Focus’ feature. This boosts nearby voices in loud or busy environments.

Meta is not the only company producing smart glasses, with most tech giants, including Google and Samsung, releasing similar products. Australian consumers can buy these products, alongside AI glasses from smaller brands, at a range of major retailers. The products have also been applauded for improving everyday life in the disability sector.

Nonetheless, the legality of smart glasses is under scrutiny. Outside of misuse potentially constituting a breach of consumer privacy laws, use of the glasses to record abusive or harassing material could pose a considerable threat to public safety, particularly for women and children.

Multiple media reports have detailed social media content creators, predominantly young men, using the glasses to record women as a part of ‘pick-up’ content. One woman reported discovering footage of an uncomfortable interaction that occurred in Sydney’s east, on social media. She stated that the US-based content creator had been covertly recording her on smart glasses, and the post had “horrific comments” from his followers. Another woman was covertly filmed in a London shopping centre by a man wearing Meta glasses. She was told by the man, who posted the video on social media, that its removal from social media was a ‘paid service’.

The smart glasses have also begun to appear as a tool for unauthorised and non-consensual sexual recording.

In the United States, a Milwaukee County administrator was accused and pleaded not guilty to allegedly filming his former partner during sexual intercourse on both Meta smart glasses and using a phone. In New Zealand, an Auckland engineer pleaded guilty to commencing a recording of a sex worker on his smart glasses while she was naked in front of him.

In February 2026, Swedish media published an investigation into Meta and its data use. The investigation focused on data annotation, an action where human workers label data, such as videos and images, to assist the training of AI systems. Human workers from Sama, a firm used by Meta for outsourcing data-training, based in Nairobi, Kenya, reported viewing intimate material. Complainant workers stated that footage included people engaging in sexual activity, undressing, using the bathroom, and handling sensitive material. Meta has since terminated their contract with Sama. However, a class action has been filed against Meta in California by consumers on allegations including false advertising of privacy standards and breach of contract.

In New South Wales, there are a number of circumstances where using AI smart glasses could constitute an offence.

Foremost, under the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), filming a person engaged in a private act is criminalised under voyeurism and related offences. A private act includes when a person is using the toilet, showering or bathing, is in a state of undress, engaging in a sexual act not ordinarily done in public, or any similar activity.

Improper use of smart glasses could also appear in cases of stalking, doxxing and harassment. While on its own, the technology is unlikely to constitute an offence, it could increase the capacity for offenders to acquire personal information, contributing to the offence.

Within the Surveillance Devices Act 2007 (NSW), recording of a private conversation without the consent of all parties is prohibited. Under the Act, a private conversation is any words spoken by one person to one or more persons where the circumstances can reasonably be taken to indicate that any of the parties desire the words to only be listened to by themselves and/or other persons with consent. It does not include a conversation made in circumstances where parties should reasonably expect to be overheard.

Therefore, use of the recording features that exist on many smart glasses, like the Meta glasses, in certain circumstances, could constitute an offence.

In cases where smart glasses recordings are made in public spaces, there are limited protections. If the recording is misused online and may constitute cyberbullying, the material can be reported to the eSafety Commissioner.

Multiple instances of misuse of AI smart glasses have been identified in the United States. WIRED, an American magazine that examines emerging technologies, released a recent report that found that Meta was embedding code that would have created facial recognition technology (FRT) in their glasses. Researchers found the code in the devices’ companion app, which intended to convert images of faces into ‘unique biometric signatures to identify strangers in public’. This feature was not yet enabled for consumers, and Meta has since removed it.

Effective as of July 20, 2026, the New York Unified Court System became the first to prohibit the use of smart glasses in all state and local court facilities. Other states, like Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and California, have issued partial judicial bans, or court orders against the use of the eyewear in the courtroom. Notably, in California, Meta team members wearing Meta glasses during the trial of founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg were told by Superior Court Judge Carolyn Kuhl that they could be held for contempt of court if they recorded with the glasses.

Amid overarching scrutiny, AI smart glasses have proven transformative in the disability sector. Specifically, for blind and low-vision users. Users can speak to the glasses, asking them to read text, describe images, and make phone calls.

This positive application underscores the need for Australian legislation to catch up with the technology. Legal experts suggest that while a new statutory tort for serious invasions of privacy has been introduced, prosecution can remain difficult. As more companies announce the release of smart glasses products, it is likely that more detailed and specific legislation will need to emerge to protect privacy and safety.