Courts Move to Confiscate Meta Glasses as Covert Recording Concerns Mount

Judges and court administrators have drawn a firm line. Meta’s stylish smart glasses, the ones that look like ordinary Ray-Bans but pack a camera and microphone, now face outright prohibition in multiple jurisdictions. The latest move comes from England and Wales, where His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service will confiscate the devices at the door. Visitors get them back on the way out. No exceptions.

The decision follows similar steps in New York and scattered U.S. courtrooms. It reflects a growing worry that these consumer gadgets undermine the basic rules against recording inside judicial buildings. Those rules exist for good reason. They protect witnesses, jurors, and the integrity of proceedings from secret capture and later misuse. Yet the glasses make violation almost effortless. A wearer can record an entire hearing without raising an arm or drawing attention.

“There are clear restrictions on taking images or videos within courts and tribunals which is why the use of Meta glasses is prohibited,” a spokesperson for the court service told The Guardian. The policy is blunt. Bring the glasses in. Hand them over. Leave without them until you exit.

And this isn’t theoretical. Earlier this year a claimant in London’s High Court stood accused of receiving coaching through smart glasses while testifying. Judge Raquel Agnello KC said Laimonas Jakštys appeared “assisted or coached in his replies to questions put to him during cross examination.” Jakštys denied the allegation and insisted the glasses weren’t connected to his phone. The episode added fuel to officials’ concerns.

Across the Atlantic the pattern repeats. New York became the first state to impose a blanket ban. Effective July 20, 2026, anyone wearing glasses or headsets with built-in recording technology must surrender them before entering any of the state’s 1,240 courts. The memo from the Office of Court Administration cited the risk that individuals could “surreptitiously record court proceedings” and expose identities of jurors or witnesses. ExtremeTech reported the details, noting the prohibition covers Meta’s products as well as devices from Xreal and RayNeo.

Pennsylvania’s First Judicial Circuit issued its own order in April 2026. Smart glasses with recording capability are banned without prior written authorization. All electronic devices, including the glasses, must be powered off and kept out of sight. The Maryland State Bar Association covered the announcement.

Even high-profile trials have spotlighted the issue. During Mark Zuckerberg’s testimony in a Los Angeles case examining whether Meta’s platforms harm children, Judge Carolyn B. Kuhl addressed the Meta CEO’s security detail. Several wore the glasses. The judge ordered them removed immediately. She warned that any recording would lead to contempt charges. “If you have done that, you must delete that, or you will be held in contempt of the court,” she said, according to accounts that reached CBS News.

The incidents pile up. A federal court in Wisconsin updated its prohibited-items list in early 2025 to include smart glasses alongside cameras and weapons. The Western District of Wisconsin now bars Meta glasses, Google Glass remnants, or any eyewear with recording ability.

Meta has sold millions of the devices. Seven million pairs moved last year alone, priced from £269 to £469. The company insists privacy sits at the core of the product. A pulsing light appears when recording begins. Software updates detect if users drill out that indicator. Yet critics remain unconvinced. Some pubs, restaurants, and theaters in Britain already refuse entry to anyone wearing them. They earned the nickname “pervert glasses” after reports of non-consensual filming, especially of women. The Guardian noted the label has stuck.

But courts present a distinct problem. Smartphones are usually permitted inside British court buildings on the condition owners do not record proceedings. No parallel carve-out exists for glasses that can capture high-resolution video and audio while perched unnoticed on a face. The distinction matters. A phone in hand signals intent. Glasses do not.

Privacy advocates and legal experts see the bans as overdue. The technology has matured faster than the rules governing its use in sensitive environments. Earlier versions of similar devices, like Google Glass a decade ago, sparked comparable debates but never achieved mainstream adoption. Meta’s partnership with EssilorLuxottica changed that. The glasses look normal. They perform well as sunglasses or prescription frames. And they connect to an AI assistant that can describe surroundings or answer questions in real time.

That last feature raises another risk. In the London case the judge suspected external coaching. Real-time AI analysis of testimony or facial cues could give an unfair advantage. Or it could simply distract. Either way, the potential for interference clashes with the demand for unfiltered evidence and argument.

Meta declined to comment directly on the England and Wales policy. A spokesperson reiterated that the glasses display a visible indicator during recording and employ tamper-detection measures. The company has faced separate lawsuits over how it handles footage captured by users. One class action alleged that private videos were sent to overseas contractors for review, including intimate content. Those complaints, however, have not slowed sales.

Regulators in Europe have examined the glasses under GDPR and the AI Act. Ireland’s data protection commission once questioned whether the original recording light provided adequate notice. Meta enlarged it and added a blinking pattern. Still, the fundamental tension remains. A device designed for effortless capture collides with spaces that forbid exactly that behavior.

So what happens next? More jurisdictions may follow New York, Pennsylvania, and now England and Wales. Court security officers already screen for weapons and obvious electronics. Adding glasses to the checklist requires little extra effort. Some administrators may allow powered-off glasses stored in a bag. Others prefer total confiscation to remove doubt.

The move also signals something larger. Consumer technology once celebrated for blending into daily life now encounters pushback when that blending threatens established norms. Juries must deliberate without fear their faces will appear on social media. Witnesses deserve protection from identification or retaliation. Lawyers and judges expect proceedings to stay contained.

Meta continues to roll out updates. New colors, better cameras, longer battery life. The company positions the glasses as helpful companions rather than surveillance tools. Yet in courtrooms the helpfulness fades against the risk of contempt or mistrial. Officials have chosen caution. They confiscate first. Ask questions later. Or not at all.

Observers on X reacted quickly to the England and Wales announcement. Many welcomed the step. “No pervert glasses in court. Good,” one user posted alongside the Guardian link. Others pointed to the pattern. New York last month. California judges this year. The momentum builds.

Whether the bans spread further depends on how judges weigh the convenience of ordinary-looking eyewear against the ancient principle that justice must be seen to be done, but not secretly recorded. For now the glasses stay at the door. Their owners proceed inside without them. The proceedings continue, at least for the moment, without an invisible audience.