By Imani Okafor Fact-checked by Margit Holm Updated
CONFIRMED
Camera-equipped smart glasses have gone from novelty to regulated device in about 18 months. Courts, schools, exam boards, militaries, cinemas and privacy regulators on four continents now restrict them. Australia’s privacy regulator opened a formal investigation in October 2026, and Victoria’s school ban starts in 2027. This guide lists where the rules apply, how each is enforced, and what to do if you wear a pair.
Each claim is graded by source. Official means a government, court or company document. Proven reporting means outlets such as Reuters, Bloomberg Law, Dawn or the ABC. Community or teardown means app analysis or advocacy findings that the vendor has not confirmed.
Smart glasses bans at a glance
| Jurisdiction / body | Setting | Type of restriction | Effective | Enforcement | Source grade |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| New York State courts (US) | 1,240+ court buildings | Usage ban, prescription pairs included | July 20, 2026 | Surrendered to security at entry | Proven reporting (Bloomberg Law, OCA memo) |
| Philadelphia First Judicial District (US) | Courthouses | Usage ban | March 30, 2026 | Criminal contempt | Proven reporting |
| Montgomery County, PA (US) | Courthouses | Usage ban | May 2026 | Court security, contempt | Proven reporting |
| Forsyth County, NC (US) | Courthouse | Usage ban | November 2025 | Court security | Proven reporting |
| US District Court, Hawaii | Federal courthouse | Device prohibition | June 2025 | Court security | Proven reporting |
| England and Wales | Courts | Existing photography and recording law applied | Ongoing | Contempt of court | Official statute |
| Victoria (Australia) | All schools | Off and stored during school hours | 2027 school year | School discipline | Official |
| Western Australia | All schools | Wearing, charging and storing banned | October 12, 2026 | School discipline | Official / proven reporting |
| Florida (US) | Elementary and middle schools | Statewide device ban under HB 1105 | In force | School discipline | Proven reporting |
| Utah (US) | Schools | SB 69 | July 1, 2026 | School discipline | Proven reporting |
| College Board (SAT) | All test sites | Prohibited device | March 2026 | Dismissal, score cancellation | Official policy |
| South Korea | Exam halls | Prohibited device | In force | Exam disqualification | Proven reporting |
| US Air Force | In uniform | Glasses with camera, video or AI banned | January 9, 2026 | Military discipline | Proven reporting |
| ICE (US) | Workplace | Employee ban | August 19, 2026 | Employment discipline | Proven reporting |
| UK Cinema Association | Member cinemas | Camera glasses restricted | August 2026 | Removal from screening | Proven reporting |
| DEF CON 34 | Conference | Event ban | August 6 to 9, 2026 | Badge and entry rules | Official event policy |
| Norway | Parks, beaches, museums, malls, schools, playgrounds | Planned temporary ban | Not yet in force | Not yet published | Proven reporting (Reuters) |
| Punjab (Pakistan) | Province-wide | Section 144 order on camera glasses | In force | Section 188 prosecution | Proven reporting (Dawn) |
| Australia (OAIC) | National | Formal investigation | October 2026 | Privacy Act powers | Proven reporting |
What triggered the 2026 crackdown
Two events turned scattered concern into coordinated action.
The first was code. In June 2026, the EFF and WIRED reported finding facial recognition code inside Meta’s companion app, the former Meta View now folded into the Meta AI app. Meta has not shipped a public face-ID feature, and dormant code is not proof of intent. Regulators still read it as a roadmap. It also echoed I-XRAY, the 2024 Harvard student demo that paired Ray-Ban Meta glasses with public face-search tools to identify strangers in seconds.
The second was the light. Meta’s mandatory v26 firmware update stops wearers from disabling the camera’s LED indicator. Meta presented this as a privacy fix. It also undercut the “covert recording” argument in some settings and strengthened it in others. Regulators noted that the LED had existed since 2021 and hobbyists had been taping over it ever since.
Scale made both matter. Omdia’s 2026 market tracking, as cited by Reuters, puts 2025 global AI-glasses shipments at 8.7 million units, up 322% year on year. EssilorLuxottica and Meta held 81.3% of first-half 2026 shipments. Reuters reported in October 2026 that EssilorLuxottica’s shares had roughly halved over the preceding twelve months, with privacy risk among the reasons cited.
Courts: the strictest rules
New York’s blanket ban
A July 1 memo from the Office of Court Administration, obtained by Bloomberg Law, bars all headwear and eyewear with a camera, microphone, computer or other recording technology from New York State courts since July 20, 2026. The ban covers more than 1,240 courts, and court employees are included. Prescription smart glasses are not exempt. They go to security for safekeeping. The memo cites secret recording in breach of the state’s Civil Rights Law and court rules. Engadget called it the first blanket statewide courthouse ban in the US.
The US court bans that came first
New York was the largest ban but not the first:
- June 2025: The federal district court in Hawaii added smart glasses to its prohibited devices.
- November 2025: Forsyth County, North Carolina, banned them from its courthouse.
- March 30, 2026: Philadelphia’s First Judicial District banned them. Violators face criminal contempt.
- May 2026: Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, followed.
Federal districts including the Western District of Wisconsin and the Middle District of Florida list smart glasses as prohibited on their own court pages. Check the specific court’s page before you travel, because federal and state rules often differ within the same city.
England and Wales
No new statute was needed. Section 41 of the Criminal Justice Act 1925 already bans taking photographs in court, and section 9 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 bans sound recording without permission. Courts have applied both to Meta glasses. A pair that records audio or images is treated like a phone, and breaching the rules can be dealt with as contempt.
Schools and exams
Australia
Victoria’s Carroll Labor government confirmed on 21 October 2026 that its school phone ban will cover smart glasses and wearables from the 2027 school year. It applies to government, Catholic and independent schools. Devices must be off and stored during school hours and activities. The only exemption is a reasonable adjustment for disability, and only where no other suitable adjustment exists.
Western Australia went further on 22 September. Its ban, applying from 12 October, covers wearing, charging and storing smart glasses on school premises. The ABC called it the nation’s most comprehensive.
US state laws
- Florida: HB 1105 bans devices including smart glasses in elementary and middle schools statewide. Polk, Hillsborough, Pinellas and Palm Beach county districts have also named smart glasses explicitly in their own codes of conduct.
- Utah: SB 69 took effect July 1, 2026, and covers smart glasses in schools.
- Alabama: The FOCUS Act’s school device restrictions reach smart glasses.
- Louisiana HB 410 and California SB 1130 also address devices that record. Bill text has shifted during legislative sessions, so check current status.
- Pennsylvania H.B. 2603 takes a different approach. It would mandate a visible recording indicator by law instead of banning the glasses.
SAT and South Korea
The College Board has banned smart glasses from all SAT testing sites since March 2026. Students caught with them can be dismissed and have their scores cancelled. South Korea restricts smart glasses in exam halls, consistent with its zero-tolerance device rules for high-stakes tests.
Government and military workplaces
The US Air Force banned smart glasses with camera, video or AI capabilities from wear in uniform on January 9, 2026. ICE barred employees from wearing smart glasses at work from August 19, 2026. In September 2026, reports said the federal government was considering barring camera-equipped smart glasses across government workplaces. Treat that as under consideration, not policy.
Venues and private businesses
Private operators set their own rules through conditions of entry, and most enforce them by asking you to remove the glasses or leave.
- UK Cinema Association: An August 2026 policy restricts camera-equipped smart glasses across member cinemas. The aim is to stop film piracy.
- Royal Caribbean: The cruise line prohibits smart glasses in certain onboard areas.
- Soho House and Wetherspoons: Both have restricted them. Soho House extends its long-standing no-photography culture to the glasses.
- NBA arenas and Co-op Live Manchester: Both have barred or restricted them at events.
- Comic-Con operators: Several have added them to prohibited-item lists.
- DEF CON 34 (August 6 to 9, 2026): The hacker conference banned them. This is the clearest sign of self-regulation from the tech community, where attendees know exactly what these devices can capture.
Look for signs at entry. Many venues now name smart glasses next to cameras and recording devices.
Europe: regulators, prosecutors and the AI Act
EU-level pressure
Reuters reports that the European Data Protection Board issued a preliminary, non-binding statement saying the glasses enable covert recording, including of bystanders’ conversations. The statement urges manufacturers to:
- combine recording lights with sound alerts and notifications to nearby devices
- limit live streaming
- automatically blur bystanders’ faces
- apply location-based restrictions in hospitals and schools
The EDPB has also commissioned a report on the “social acceptability” of smart glasses. MEP Veronika Cifrová Ostrihoňová has urged the European Commission to consider legislation specific to smart glasses. PetaPixel and Euractiv report that France, Germany and the Netherlands are actively considering bans.
Country moves
- France: The CNIL issued a formal data protection alert on camera-equipped smart glasses in May and June 2026.
- Germany: In August 2026, the advocacy group HateAid filed a criminal complaint with the Frankfurt prosecutor. It alleges Ray-Ban Meta glasses violate the Telecommunications Digital Services Data Protection Act (TDDDG). Section 8 of that law bans transmitting devices disguised as everyday objects and built for covert recording. Germany used the same provision to ban the “My Friend Cayla” doll in 2017. Germany’s data protection authority has warned that the glasses could fall foul of this concealed-recording rule. That would turn a privacy question into a criminal one.
- Italy and Austria: Data regulators told Reuters they are investigating incidents of pupils using smart glasses in schools.
- Norway: Reuters reports a planned temporary ban in parks, beaches, museums, shopping centres, schools and playgrounds. An expert group is drafting permanent national rules.
The AI Act
The EU AI Act became broadly applicable on August 2, 2026. Its core prohibitions have applied since February 2, 2025, and three of them bear directly on smart glasses:
- untargeted scraping of facial images to build recognition databases
- biometric categorisation that infers sensitive traits such as race, religion or sexual orientation
- real-time remote biometric identification in public spaces for law enforcement, with narrow exceptions
A consumer face-ID feature like the one suggested by the code found in Meta’s app would run into these rules and GDPR at the same time.
Meta Ray-Ban Display and the EU
Meta’s display model has not launched in the EU. Two obstacles are reported. The first is the EU Batteries Regulation, which requires user-removable batteries in portable devices from February 18, 2027. The second is uncertainty over AI Act compliance. This is the most concrete case of regulation shaping which hardware Europeans can buy.
Australia: the OAIC investigation
In October 2026, the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner opened a formal investigation into the Chinese app company behind a range of low-cost smart glasses. These cheap unbranded pairs often have weaker indicator lights than Meta’s, and they route images and audio through apps with opaque data handling. They are a harder enforcement target than a single large vendor. The investigation runs under the Privacy Act and has no announced timeline.
Punjab: a province-wide order
Dawn reported that Punjab announced a planned ban on camera-enabled glasses and issued a formal Section 144 order the next day. The Home Department secretary said the advance notice gave owners time to dispose of their glasses. Section 144 orders in Pakistan are emergency public-order powers. They are time-limited and renewable, and breaches are usually prosecuted under Section 188 of the Pakistan Penal Code. Punjab’s version applies province-wide, unlike most bans, which cover a single setting. Renewal dates and arrest figures have not been widely reported.
Sales bans versus usage bans
Nearly every rule above restricts use in a place. None bans sale outright, except the EU’s indirect block on Meta Ray-Ban Display and Germany’s TDDDG route, which could make possession of qualifying devices unlawful. BofA analysts cited by Reuters consider an outright ban unlikely. That is a market view, not a regulator’s position. A usage ban dents everyday usefulness. A sales ban removes the market. The German complaint is the one to watch, because it is the only live case that could plausibly reach the second outcome.
Hardware design as a regulatory lever
Regulators have consistently pushed on design instead of banning devices. Ireland’s DPC and Italy’s Garante questioned the Ray-Ban Stories LED in 2021, and later models got a larger, pulsing light. The v26 update made it impossible to disable. The EDPB now wants sound alerts, nearby-device notifications and geofencing on top. Pennsylvania’s H.B. 2603 would write an indicator requirement into state law. Expect the next fight to be over audible signals and automatic face blurring.
Biometric data and existing privacy law
Most jurisdictions already have laws that apply. Illinois’ Biometric Information Privacy Act requires written consent before collecting faceprints and allows private lawsuits. California is one of the US states requiring all-party consent to record confidential conversations (Penal Code 632), so capturing audio of a private conversation can be illegal without a dedicated smart-glasses law. In Europe, GDPR treats facial images processed for identification as special-category data. A business that lets staff wear recording glasses during operations needs a lawful basis, notices and a retention policy.
Accessibility: the unresolved problem
Blind and low-vision users rely on specific AI features that a blanket ban removes:
- Scene and object description: asking Meta AI what is in front of you
- Text reading: menus, signs, labels, mail and whiteboards read aloud
- Be My Eyes integration: a hands-free video call with a sighted volunteer through the glasses
- Dedicated assistive glasses such as Envision, built specifically for blind users
Vision Australia said Victoria’s exemption does not meet the needs of blind and low-vision students. The model is weak because the student has to prove no alternative exists. New York offers no exemption at all. No jurisdiction yet has a workable middle path, such as allowing camera use for description while blocking storage and streaming. Camera-free display glasses like Even Realities’ G1 avoid the camera problem but still have microphones, which New York’s rule also covers.
What to do if you wear smart glasses
Prescription wearers: Carry a plain backup pair everywhere you might face security screening, including courts, exam halls, government buildings and arenas. Do not count on an exemption.
Lawyers and litigants: Check the specific court’s device page before each appearance. Advise clients and witnesses in advance, because security will not make exceptions at the door. In Philadelphia, a breach risks criminal contempt. Get written permission before recording anything in court.
Students and parents: In Victoria, Western Australia, Florida, Utah and Alabama, treat smart glasses like phones. For the SAT, leave them at home, since being caught with them can cancel your scores. Families of blind or low-vision students should request a reasonable adjustment in writing early.
Travellers: Expect rules in Norway’s listed public spaces, Punjab, cruise ships and UK cinemas. In Germany, avoid recording people covertly, given the pending TDDDG complaint.
Businesses: Post clear signs, add smart glasses to device policies, and decide whether staff may wear them. Record that decision as part of your compliance documentation.
What we don’t know yet
- Which Norwegian locations will make the final list.
- Whether the EDPB statement becomes formal guidance.
- How Frankfurt prosecutors will rule on HateAid’s complaint.
- What the OAIC investigation will find.
- How Victorian schools will judge “no other suitable adjustment.”
- Whether the US federal workplace ban goes ahead.
FAQ
Are smart glasses illegal anywhere?
Not outright. They are banned in specific places, including courts, schools, exam halls, military uniforms and some venues. Punjab’s province-wide order is the broadest. Germany’s TDDDG complaint could produce the first ruling against the device itself.
Can I wear prescription Ray-Ban Meta glasses into a New York court?
No. Security will hold them until you leave. Bring a non-smart backup pair.
Does the EU AI Act ban smart glasses?
No. It bans certain uses, including untargeted facial scraping, sensitive biometric categorisation and most real-time public facial recognition by police. Face-ID features on glasses would face serious legal barriers in the EU.
Can a business ban smart glasses?
Yes. Private venues can set conditions of entry, and many enforce them with signs and staff checks.
Is there a disability exemption?
Victoria offers a narrow reasonable-adjustment exemption. New York offers none. No jurisdiction has yet built a dedicated exemption for blind users who rely on AI description features.
Keep reading
Article info
- Fact-checked by Margit Holm before publication.
- Published · Updated
How the facts were checked
- Every claim is checked by Margit Holm; anything we cannot confirm is corrected, labelled or removed.