Did someone wearing Meta Glasses film you today? Are you sure?
An investigation reveals that Meta's popular smartglasses, made with Ray-Ban and Oakley, are being widely misused to secretly film people without consent, including in their own homes, at concerts and at work. A cottage industry of vendors, such as one called Ghost Metas, has emerged to disable the LED light that is supposed to signal when the glasses are recording, making covert filming undetectable and raising serious privacy concerns as the devices become a mainstream consumer product.
Meta reportedly sold around 7 million pairs of the glasses in 2025, nearly tripling combined sales from the previous two years, with celebrities including Chris Hemsworth, Teyana Taylor and Kylie Jenner promoting the technology. Alongside this commercial success, the glasses have reportedly been used for exploitation, with men filming women without consent on beaches, streets and in massage parlours, and some footage posted online. A lawyer bringing a class-action suit against Meta over its privacy assurances describes the technology as a significant erosion of privacy rights.
- Vendors disable Meta Glasses' recording LED, enabling covert filming
- Meta sold roughly 7 million pairs of smartglasses in 2025
- Lawsuit alleges Meta's privacy assurances are being undermined
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Advocates for smart glasses point out that recording technology has always provoked initial alarm, from handheld cameras to camera phones, yet society adapted and benefited from the ability to document life, gather evidence and share experiences. They note that Meta's glasses include a visible recording light, arguing this is a reasonable disclosure mechanism comparable to existing norms around phones, and that banning or heavily restricting the devices would stifle useful innovation, including accessibility applications for people with visual or memory impairments. They also argue individuals already have limited privacy in public spaces and at events where phone cameras are ubiquitous, so the shift to glasses is one of degree rather than a fundamentally new threat.
The case against
Privacy advocates counter that the discreet, hands-free design of smart glasses meaningfully changes the calculus, since the recording indicator is small, easily obscured or simply not noticed by those nearby, unlike the obvious gesture of holding up a phone. They argue people have a reasonable expectation of not being secretly filmed in their own homes, at work or during intimate social moments such as concerts, and that the ease of covert recording invites misuse, harassment and the erosion of trust in everyday interactions. They contend that as this technology becomes normalised, meaningful consent becomes harder to obtain, and that manufacturers and regulators bear responsibility for ensuring safeguards keep pace with the capability, rather than leaving individuals to police their own exposure.