Smart glasses backlash: Norway eyes ban as Dutch chain pulls Meta

From social stigma to government action

Until recently, the backlash against camera-equipped smart glasses mostly took the form of signs on pub doors and insults online. It is now turning into law and lost sales. In the first week of October, Norway's government said it was preparing a bill for a temporary ban on camera-enabled glasses in a wide range of public places. The list includes parks, beaches, museums, shopping centres, schools, daycare centres, healthcare facilities, gyms and public events, though private use would remain legal12. A few days earlier, Dutch eyewear chain Hans Anders stopped selling Meta's Ray-Ban smart glasses in the Netherlands and Belgium. The company cited the public and political debate over when the technology should be used10. Hans Anders belongs to Nexeye, which runs about 400 stores and employs more than 2,000 people in the two countries5.

Taken together, these two moves mark a change in the story. Bans by individual venues are a nuisance for Meta. A government proposing restrictions across whole categories of public space, and a major retailer dropping the product, are a commercial and regulatory problem.

What set off the latest wave

In the Netherlands, the trigger was press coverage of covert filming. The newspaper AD reported on people, mostly women, being filmed in public without knowing it5. NL Times reported that "hundreds, maybe even thousands" of Dutch women and girls had been recorded in recent months, with footage shared in Telegram groups. The reported locations included beaches, shopping streets and bathrooms16. The Dutch Data Protection Authority warned that videos of identifiable people generally cannot be published without consent. It also said it is looking at further measures against camera glasses and other wearables with cameras5. The consumer group Consumentenbond has threatened to sue Meta unless the glasses are changed to comply with privacy law. The anti-abuse group Offlimits has asked Meta and EssilorLuxottica to stop selling them voluntarily until covert recording is no longer possible16.

Other countries are seeing similar complaints. Paris prosecutors opened investigations in September after women said they had been filmed without consent using connected glasses6. In Britain, Wetherspoon, Soho House clubs and ATG theatres have restricted the glasses5. The UK Cinema Association said in August that some cinema operators would limit or ban them, citing both privacy and film piracy6. New York's court system has barred any eyewear that can record audio or video from courthouses since July 2011. Australia's federal government has said it is considering limits on camera glasses in government workplaces6.

The nickname "pervert glasses" now appears across mainstream coverage, from the BBC to the Los Angeles Times12. CNET described wearable cameras as being in the middle of a PR crisis that shows no sign of easing7.

Meta's two-track response

Meta held its Connect event in the middle of this. The company launched Ray-Ban Meta Audio, a pair of smart glasses with no camera that handles calls, music and its AI assistant1. Vogue Business reported that the model weighs 43 grams and runs up to 12 hours on a charge3. Some reports say the camera-free line starts at $3492.

The coverage does not agree on why Meta built it. Meta's VP of wearables, Alex Himel, told Vogue Business that the audio-only glasses were in development before the backlash peaked. He also said early buyers were not mainly buying the glasses for the camera3. Oxford researcher Janusz Swierczynski told the BBC the release was a "positive sign" that Meta was listening. He called the response imperfect because camera models are still on sale, and said the timing was "fantastic"1.

On the evidence available, the more convincing reading is that this is a hedge rather than a retreat. Meta also launched a third-generation camera model with a 12-megapixel sensor that records 3K video3. It is adding its Muse AI agent to the glasses as well2. Vogue's verdict was that Meta is mostly choosing defiance over retreat3. The New York Times noted that the company's new private AI mode came with no new safeguards against users recording other people inappropriately13. It also reported that CTO Andrew Bosworth played down the privacy concerns and said Meta would keep pushing glasses as a computing platform13.

The privacy measure Meta did announce, called Private Processing, protects the wearer rather than the people being filmed. Digital Trends reported that it is meant to keep cloud AI data out of Meta's own reach. The system is not yet live on the glasses, and Meta announced it early so outside researchers could audit it9. That may build trust with buyers. It does nothing for a woman on a beach who has no idea she is being recorded.

The dispute over the recording light

Most of the argument now centres on one small part: the LED that lights up when the camera records. Meta's position has been consistent. A spokesperson said every camera-equipped pair has a light that blinks during capture, cannot be switched off, and disables the camera if it is covered or tampered with. Meta adds that smartphones have no such indicator12. In July, the company pushed a mandatory update that disables the camera if the LED is physically damaged. It also said it would remove listings for modification services and might take legal action against them.

The reporting shows how recent that protection is. One outlet said third parties sold ways around the LED for nearly two years before Meta's July fix8. The BBC described a whole industry built around disabling the light1. Meta's figures can be read in different ways. It says fewer than 0.1% of frames sold have been physically tampered with1. It also told the Times it had permanently disabled cameras on thousands of glasses whose owners removed the light13. EssilorLuxottica sold about seven million pairs last year1, and the Guardian puts Ray-Ban sales at 9 million or more since 202312. On those numbers, a small percentage still means thousands of devices built for covert filming.

Critics also say the issue goes beyond tampering. A light that works can still be easy to miss, and people who are blind or have low vision may not be able to see it at all15. Industry proposals such as Qualcomm's on-device face blurring have had a cool reception. One advocate told CNET that blurring a face does not undo the harm of the recording7.

Where the coverage diverges: momentum or stall

One of the clearest disagreements is about the industry's direction. The New York Times argued that the complaints will not slow Big Tech's push into wearables13. CNBC described a breakout moment that has stalled, with a damaged reputation and wider public suspicion of AI-driven surveillance. It also noted that smart ring maker Oura postponed its IPO4. Competitors are not backing away from cameras either. Upcoming Android XR glasses from Samsung and Google are reported to include cameras in every style, with anti-tampering protection for the indicator8.

Both accounts can be true, and that is the real problem. Investment is still flowing, but public acceptance, which is what turns a gadget into a platform, is declining. The camera is what powers visual AI features such as object recognition and visual search8. That makes it hard for manufacturers to remove it without losing their main selling point.

Regulation is uneven

The policy response so far is a patchwork. Norway's Labour-led minority government needs support from other parties to pass its ban, and it has also set up an expert group to draft permanent rules12. It has said it may make exceptions for "socially beneficial uses" by vulnerable groups10. California's governor, by contrast, vetoed a bill that would have penalised covert recording with smart glasses in private settings such as changing rooms and doctors' offices10. Britain's technology department says it has no plans for specific legislation because existing criminal offences already cover harmful conduct18.

In the US, Meta also faces lawsuits. More than 70 people have sued, including over claims that intimate images were exposed to AI-training contractors. Meta denies those claims2. Concern about facial recognition adds to the pressure. Over 75 advocacy groups protested in April after reports that Meta planned the feature15. Unreleased facial-recognition code was later found in the Meta AI app, and Meta removed it after it was reported9.

The people caught in the middle

One group gets less attention than it should. For many visually impaired people, the glasses are an important assistive tool. A Guide Dogs employee showed the BBC how he uses them to read his post aloud. He also said he worries that venue bans will stop him using them in public18. Campaigner Liz Hunter, who wants the general public kept away from the devices, still says they should remain available to blind users1.

That tension shows the likely way forward. Lawmakers will probably regulate by place and by purpose rather than banning the hardware. Norway's draft already does this, with a list of sensitive locations and room for exemptions10. For Meta, that kind of outcome may be worse than its current reputation problem. If camera glasses are unwelcome in gyms, schools, beaches and shopping centres, it becomes much harder to sell them as something people wear all day.