Meta's smart glasses have been prohibited in courts throughout England and Wales.

      His Majesty’s Courts & Tribunals Service has prohibited Meta smart glasses from being used in court buildings throughout England and Wales, reviving a long-standing debate about who is allowed to record what. HMCTS, which oversees criminal, civil, and family courts, will seize the glasses upon entry and return them only when the individual exits, treating the eyewear as a covert recording device.

      This minor policy change carries significant implications, as it aligns with a broader trend of bans in various venues, including restaurants, theaters, and pubs, a fact familiar to anyone who has seen Meta’s Ray-Bans turned away. An HMCTS spokesperson stated, “There are clear restrictions on taking images or videos within courts and tribunals which is why the use of Meta glasses is prohibited,” and the statement speaks for itself.

      Recording within a UK court is already prohibited without authorization and can be considered contempt of court, so this ban is more about enforcing an existing rule rather than introducing a new one in response to emerging technology.

      The challenge posed by the glasses lies in their very clever design. While smartphones are permitted in court as long as they are not used for recording—mainly because a phone being raised to record is easily noticeable—there is no similar exception for glasses that quietly capture images and video. The product's discreet design makes it particularly unwelcome in a courtroom setting.

      New York’s courts instituted a similar ban recently for the same reason, highlighting the intersection of courtroom regulations and Meta’s technological innovation. When two of the world's busiest legal systems impose the same restriction within a short time frame, it begins to resemble a trend rather than isolated caution.

      As is often the case, a specific incident prompted renewed scrutiny. Earlier this year, a claimant named Laimonas Jakstys faced accusations of wearing smart glasses in the High Court and receiving “coaching” through them during his testimony, which he denied. Whether the event transpired as described or not, the mere possibility of a witness receiving prompts through an unseen camera exemplifies a significant privacy concern that becomes a practical challenge.

      The magnitude of this issue is what transforms it from a niche worry to a widespread concern. Meta sold approximately seven million pairs of glasses last year, priced between £269 and £469, making them prevalent rather than just a gadget for enthusiasts.

      The real issue is that those affected the most—the individuals being filmed—have little ability to opt out, which is why venues, including courts, are trying to address this imbalance with broad measures.

      Meta, on the other hand, prefers to discuss its engineering rather than bans. The company chose not to comment on the court policy but frequently highlights the pulsing light designed to indicate when the glasses are recording, along with technology that detects tampering to prevent anyone from turning it off.

      These are genuine safety features, but a courtroom doesn’t rely on a tiny LED to enforce contempt law, which is why the approach has been to eliminate the device altogether.

      The underlying issue is that technology has outpaced social norms, and institutions are left to create rules on the fly. Courts, where the prohibition against recording safeguards witnesses, jurors, and the fundamental fairness of trials, are the most crucial setting for this improvisation, making it significant, albeit somewhat foreboding, that they are clearly establishing boundaries.

      Currently, the rule for England and Wales is straightforward: if a camera cannot be confidently turned off, it is not allowed inside.