Smart Glasses – When Data Protection Clashes with Invisible Tracking

A few weeks earlier, the controversies surrounding the Ray-Ban Meta glasses had clearly illustrated the potential abuses that such devices can lead to.

In early March 2026, several Swedish media outlets reported that images captured by the glasses marketed by Meta and EssilorLuxottica—including in private settings—had allegedly been transmitted to subcontractors tasked with annotating data intended to train the group’s artificial intelligence systems. These revelations quickly led to a class-action lawsuit filed in the United States against the two companies.

A few months later, further investigations revealed the presence, within the Meta AI Companion app, of technical components that could enable the deployment of facial recognition features. Although Meta reportedly removed these components shortly after they were revealed, this episode nevertheless reignited questions regarding the transparency of the processing methods used and the potential uses associated with these systems.

Beyond the specific circumstances of these cases, they highlight the challenges posed by technologies whose data collection methods remain largely invisible.

Smart glasses do indeed have a unique feature that sets them apart from more traditional recording devices. Because they take the form of an everyday object, they make the possibility of recording much less noticeable. Whereas recording usually involves a recognizable action, it can now be part of ordinary, continuous use. This technological discretion makes it difficult to inform the individuals concerned and, more broadly, to effectively exercise their rights.

The CNIL notes that the use of smart glasses remains subject to general data protection laws. Since these devices can collect or transmit information relating to identified or identifiable individuals, the processing operations involved fall within the scope of the GDPR and the French Data Protection Act.

Beyond this framework, other provisions protect the privacy of individuals who are filmed or recorded. Article 9 of the Civil Code guarantees everyone the right to privacy, while Article 226-1 of the Criminal Code penalizes the act of capturing, recording, or transmitting the image or voice of a person in a private place without their consent.

Based on a survey of more than 2,000 people, the CNIL notes that a large majority of French people view smart glasses as a threat to privacy. This mistrust stems in particular from the risk of pervasive surveillance: the proliferation of devices capable of continuously capturing images and sounds could gradually normalize the idea of being potentially observed at any moment.

Ultimately, such a development could profoundly alter social behavior. The constant uncertainty about whether one is being recorded could lead to self-censorship and undermine the exercise of certain fundamental freedoms, such as freedom of expression, assembly, and demonstration.

In light of these risks, the CNIL urges users to act responsibly: inform those present when recording is activated, disable recording functions when they are not needed, avoid using the glasses in places where such recording cannot reasonably be anticipated, and obtain the consent of the individuals concerned before sharing their image.

However, the focus should not be exclusively on users. The issues that have come to light during the rollout of Ray-Ban Meta glasses highlight the central role of manufacturers and associated service providers in managing risks. The obligations regarding the transparency of processing, purpose limitation, data minimization, and the regulation of any facial recognition features fall primarily on data controllers.

The CNIL’s call for vigilance thus reflects a broader awareness. Smart glasses are not merely another technological innovation: they challenge our ability to reconcile the promises of these technologies with the preservation of the privacy necessary for the effective exercise of individual freedoms.