Meta sued over AI smart glasses’ privacy concerns, after workers reviewed nudity, sex, and other footage

Meta is facing a new lawsuit over its AI smart glasses and their lack of privacy, after an investigation by Swedish newspapers found that workers at a Kenya-based subcontractor are reviewing footage from customers’ glasses, which included sensitive content, like nudity, people having sex, and using the toilet.

Meta claimed it was blurring faces in images, but sources disputed that this blurring consistently worked, reports noted.

The news prompted the U. regulator, the Information Commissioner’s Office, to investigate the matter.

Now, the tech giant is facing a lawsuit in the United States, as well.

In the newly filed complaint, plaintiffs Gina Bartone of New Jersey and Mateo Canu of California, represented by the public interest-focused Clarkson Law Firm, allege that Meta violated privacy laws and engaged in false advertising. The complaint alleges that the Meta AI smart glasses are advertised using promises like “designed for privacy, controlled by you,” and “built for your privacy,” which might not lead customers to assume their glasses’ footage, including intimate moments, was being watched by overseas workers. The plaintiffs believed Meta’s marketing and said they saw no disclaimer or information that contradicted the advertised privacy protections. The suit charges Meta and its glasses manufacturing partner Luxottica of America with conduct that violates consumer protection laws. Clarkson Law Firm, which over the years has filed other major lawsuits against tech giants, including Apple, Google, and OpenAI, points to the scale of the issues at hand.

In 2025, over seven million people bought Meta’s smart glasses.

The footage from those glasses is fed into a data pipeline for review, and users can’t opt out.

Meta told the BBC that when people share content with Meta AI, it uses contractors to review the information to improve people’s experience with the glasses, which is explained in its privacy policy, and it pointed to its Supplemental Meta Platforms Terms of Service, without specifying where this was noted.

The news outlet, however, found that a mention of human review could be found in Meta’s U.

A version of that policy that applies to the U. , states: “In some cases, Meta will review your interactions with AIs, including the content of your conversations with or messages to AIs, and this review may be automated or manual (human).

” The complaint mainly points to how the glasses were marketed, showing examples of ads that touted the privacy benefits, describing their privacy settings and “added layer of security.

” “You’re in control of your data and content,” one ad read, explaining that the smart glasses owners got to choose which content was shared with others.

The rise of smart glasses and other “luxury surveillance” tech, like always-listening AI pendants, have prompted a broad backlash.

One developer published an app capable of detecting when smart glasses are nearby.

Meta did not have a comment on the litigation itself Thursday morning.

However, spokesperson Christopher Sgro offered the following statement about the overall issue, saying, “Ray-Ban Meta glasses help you use AI, hands-free, to answer questions about the world around you.

Unless users choose to share media they’ve captured with Meta or others, that media stays on the user’s device. When people share content with Meta AI, we sometimes use contractors to review this data for the purpose of improving people’s experience, as many other companies do.

We take steps to filter this data to protect people’s privacy and to help prevent identifying information from being reviewed.

” Updated after publication with Meta’s statement