Why Meta’s smart glasses are called ‘pervert glasses’

Investigations in 2026 found people were secretly filmed with Meta’s smart glasses and videos were uploaded to social platforms. Contractors later reviewed intimate footage, prompting lawsuits and government inquiries.

A January probe found women recorded without consent in public and clips posted online that drew large audiences. A follow-up inquiry in February reported that contractors hired to train Meta’s AI reviewed footage that included people in bathrooms, changing clothes, sexual activity and visible credit card information.

In March, a class-action lawsuit was filed alleging Meta did not clearly disclose that human contractors could review content shared with its AI. The complaint seeks damages and changes to disclosure practices.

Also in March, three U.S. senators questioned Meta about reported plans to add facial recognition to the glasses, warning that the technology could enable real-time identification, stalking and harassment.

In April, the American Civil Liberties Union and a coalition of 75 organizations urged Meta to abandon facial-recognition plans, calling the technology “a red line society must not cross.” In May, the Texas attorney general opened an investigation into whether the devices could secretly record people, collect facial data or mislead consumers about use of personal information.

Meta released software updates in July intended to limit hidden recording. The company patched Ray-Ban smart glasses so the camera will disable if the indicator light is tampered with after users demonstrated ways to bypass the recording light.

Privacy advocates and event organizers said the software fixes did not resolve broader concerns about how footage is handled and shared. Several advocacy campaigns and public actions targeted the glasses, and some large events banned them to protect attendee privacy. Organizers of a major fan convention and a prominent hacker conference prohibited the devices on site.

Police in Scotland opened an investigation into a content creator accused of secretly filming people with the glasses.

A commentator wrote online that Meta had “managed to turn every wearer into an unpaid informant and everyone else into an extra who never signed a release.” Meta has said it built privacy safeguards into the glasses but continues to face questions about what footage is exposed to human reviewers and how long data is retained.

Lawsuits and regulatory inquiries remain active. Privacy groups continue to press for limits on facial recognition and clearer consumer disclosures as companies develop AI-powered eyewear intended to serve as smartphone replacements.