Of all the pieces written in this series, this one might go out of date faster than a yoghurt on a summer Crete table. Regulation (or at least discussion) is moving very quickly in this area as smart glasses are becoming more widespread around the world. Some people are getting the jitters, and these reverberations are prompting lawmakers (or at the very least LinkedIn shills) to ponder how to address these concerns.
Still, it’s worth exploring the topic right now because it is at a very early stage of exploration. Many governing bodies are publishing blogs, while other venues are already implementing bans to protect the people who attend. In London, West End theatre operator ATG will ask audiences to remove the glasses and delete any footage, cinemas are banning them over piracy, and courts in England and Wales confiscate them on entry. And in the USA, New York’s state courts banned them in July, and Oslo has banned them from its schools for the whole school day.
Law isn’t famous for moving at pace (remember how long it took to roll out legislation related to USB Type C across Europe?), but the current shape of discussions may lead to potential paths it may take in the future. Making bets on the future may be folly; it is October 2026, and a lot may happen from this point in time. Still, it’s always fun to make some sort of prediction based on what is happening now. The shape of discussions today may influence what we see tomorrow, so it may be worth feeling its edges to see what could happen later.
Or, at the very least, you can point fingers at me later and see how wrong I may be.
Let’s find out together.
Smart glasses legislation is at its early stages
Firstly, it’s worth saying that we are far away from a legislative ban on smart glasses, if that were to happen at all. Yes, there are venues that are banning them (as explored previously), but that’s a far cry from an actual law banning glasses. It is more of an exploration by legal bodies that are just looking at what is working or not.
Take the UK, ever passionate about privacy. The ICO provided a blog on this, exploring it in the UK. In its blog, chief executive Paul Arnold argued that the transparency signals society relies on, such as CCTV signs, largely assume people can see them, and that the challenge goes beyond data protection law alone. Tellingly, he did not call for a ban. Instead, he suggested new social norms may need to emerge, “potentially supported by new product standards or laws” aimed at specific misuse. Meanwhile in Germany, the Federal Network Agency has said no ban is planned, even as Hamburg’s data protection regulator concluded that recording strangers is generally unlawful for the wearer.
This is important and worth repeating; bans are not planned. People are nervous and exploring options, but outright bans are not on the table.
The exception is the Dutch Consumentenbond, which has called for a ban across Europe; though I am personally unsure that this will actually be implemented. The group is taking a blanket approach where they want an outright ban as opposed to an iterative approach. I suspect that would be shut down quickly on the grounds that it is not strong enough an area to deserve an outright ban compared to other product categories.
Still, policy people have some pressure on them, like a heavy rucksack of troubles. The public sentiment on these glasses is very low at the moment, almost like a cultural weight on discussions. This is also leading to a few campaigns looking into this. A UK Parliament petition calling for an immediate ban on the sale and promotion of smart glasses, started by teacher Guy Holder, had over nine thousand signatures (at the time of writing). While this is not enough to cause a massive splash, it shows a small group of people who want to raise it to Parliament etc.
Still, we have a group of people who are exploring a topic with a swelling public interest, some of whom want bans in particular places. But an outright call for mass bans has not occurred, at least not yet.
Influencing a new product category
This is particularly interesting considering there are a lot of companies currently exploring a new product area. Smart glasses are new, and they’re a new form factor people could use for filming or creating content. As companies like Meta or Snap are innovating using glasses and frames (which, for all intents and purposes, are technically impressive), it’s also developing in an area of societal concern.
Given how early the legislation is, there may well be soft pressure by policy people to shape how companies develop their glasses. At the very least, there’s public pressure which influences design choices, which is most likely why Meta has now released a version of their smart glasses with no camera.
But of all the areas that could influence it, the two are the ones explored in the previous article: personal liability and meaningful notice. Both topics were already explored in a previous article about privacy and smart glasses, but it’s worth reiterating them here in the context of legislation. Discussions about privacy and legislation go hand in hand, like Hansel and Gretel, and both interact with the topic very closely.
Meaningful notice and legislation
Let’s touch on meaningful notice, or the idea that people around the glasses-wearer are given notice that recording is in progress. The long and short of it is, a blinking LED light is perhaps not enough. A Civey poll for HateAid found 61% of Germans do not recognise the LED as a recording signal (though I contest this as, if glasses are a new product category, then awareness may grow with time). Meanwhile, Hamburg’s regulator found it hard to see outdoors and in sunlight (a very fair point).
I’ve explored this previously, but that does mean there are some design considerations that need to be reconsidered. These were:
-
Signals when recording needs to be much, much more obvious (without noise). Light is the obvious example here, though instead of a single bulb, perhaps it’s an idea of a strip that is bright and luminescent so it is clear for people around the person as well.
-
A noise to signal when recording has finished. Even if noise shouldn’t be used during the recording, a noise that can be heard by surrounding people would give an honest and clear indication that recording has occurred.
Legislators appear to be heading in a similar direction. Let’s break it down per country:
-
California introduced SB 1130, passed the state legislature in late August 2026, which would require recording wearables sold from 1 January 2028 to carry an indicator prominent enough to alert a reasonable person nearby, and would make it illegal to disable it.
-
China has issued a voluntary industry code calling for clear indicators when cameras or microphones are active.
-
South Korea’s privacy regulator has pressed Samsung for a light or sound so that people nearby know when its glasses are recording.
Reading up on these, some go further on sound than I would. Personally, I disagree with them. A sound during recording would affect the recording itself, and constant beeps would simply be annoying for everyone nearby. Imagine a BEEP, BEEP, BEEP which plays during key wedding ceremonies, or your child’s birthday party. A clear light while recording, followed by a sound once it has finished, feels like the better answer to me that does not disrupt honest uses of recording as well.
The bill on smart glasses is creeping up the California ladder. Credit: Digital Democracy (Calmatters)
Legislation and personal liability
The second area is liability, because there’s a discussion about whether people are liable individually or whether it’s more on the manufacturer. In my view, it should be on the wearer. If a wearer is deciding to use a camera in such a way, then they are the most relevant party. This is the same when it comes to cameras and using smartphones; it makes sense to me that there is liability for how people use the devices themselves. The manufacturer does, however, have a responsibility to make sure it is clear when the device is recording.
That broadly reflects where the law sits today. As mentioned, Hamburg’s regulator placed the onus on the wearer (though it also found that wearers and Meta become joint controllers of the footage when AI training is switched on). Wearers could face a misdemeanour for recording people without consent inside businesses where they expect privacy, and manufacturers face civil penalties of up to $2,500 per violation if their devices lack a prominent indicator. This level feels right to me, but may evolve as smart glasses grow in complexity.
The direction of legislation
All this is to say that it’s all very early days, with some very early indications. As said in the privacy article, much of the legislation focuses on personal liability and meaningful notice. That may be built on over time, when we may find legislators who help introduce design principles that will help give meaningful notice while also imposing some restrictions to ensure there’s some personal liability.
This can differ between countries, and can be tweaked based on privacy laws:
❝
“On the reach of current US privacy law, there’s a patchwork of wiretapping and state biometric privacy laws that apply in specific cases. I’ve advocated for a federal biometric privacy law…, covering bystanders and not just wearers, and establishing a national right to erasure. In general, all-party consent should be a national baseline (with very narrow exemptions).”
Trisha Ray, Associate Director and Resident Fellow, GeoTech Center
This is why I strongly suspect there won’t be an outright ban. It will more likely be an iterative process in which legislators will prod manufacturers to make some design considerations for privacy and liability, but won’t call for an outright ban as a product category grows.
That said, I can imagine legislation coming in saying that if you’re recording in a cinema; for example, the liability sits squarely with the person recording because there’s an element of theft involved. California’s bill is an early version of exactly this, targeting recording inside businesses rather than the glasses themselves. The same goes for using glasses for spying on people, as clearly there is an illicit purpose as well.
In any case, discussions will continue and will likely flower throughout 2026 and 2027 as more and more glasses enter the wild. Now I just look forward to my thoughts either being invalidated in the coming months or proven completely wrong when a European court hammers down a ban on all specs. You never know.
In the meantime, if you want to be updated, please subscribe to the Immersive Wire at www.immersivewire.com.
Note: The Immersive Wire is run by Tom Ffiske, who also works at Accenture. The contents of the website and newsletter should not be regarded as Accenture’s views.
