His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service has banned Meta smart glasses from court buildings across England and Wales because of their ability to record images and video while being worn.
The decision is rooted in the particular restrictions that apply to courts, where unauthorised photography and recording can have serious legal consequences. Most businesses do not operate under the same rules. Even so, the ban highlights a wider issue that employers and organisations should be thinking about now.
Smart glasses create a less visible recording risk
Smart glasses can enter a meeting room, reception area or client office looking much like ordinary eyewear. That makes the act of recording far less obvious than someone taking out a phone and pointing a camera at the room.For businesses, this raises immediate questions around privacy, confidentiality and data protection.
The concern becomes particularly acute in settings where sensitive information is being discussed. Internal meetings, HR conversations, client discussions and visits to secure areas can all involve personal data, commercially confidential information or material subject to internal security controls. A business may therefore find itself dealing with a recording it did not authorise, involving people who did not know they were being recorded.
Data protection obligations do not stop when recording ends
Where footage contains identifiable individuals, personal data may be involved. Depending on who is recording, for what purpose and in what context, UK GDPR obligations can come into play. This can raise questions about lawful processing, transparency and proportionality, as well as whether the recording is consistent with the organisation’s existing data protection, confidentiality and IT policies.
Further issues arise once footage has been stored. If work-related material sits on an employee’s wearable, phone or linked personal account, the organisation may still need to consider whether that information falls within its control and what obligations follow from that.
This can become particularly important in the context of subject access requests. If footage contains the personal data of an employee, client or other individual, a business may need to establish whether it can locate, retrieve and review that material, and whether any third-party information needs to be redacted before disclosure.
If an organisation does not know that work-related footage exists, where it is being stored or how long it is being kept, responding properly to a request or complaint can become much harder.
How businesses should respond to wearable recording
The technology may be moving faster than the rules many organisations already have in place. Policies written around phones, laptops and conventional cameras may not clearly address the way people now record and store information using camera-enabled glasses or other wearable devices.
Businesses should consider whether smart glasses are permitted in meetings or sensitive areas, whether recording requires prior approval, and whether visitors should be subject to the same rules as employees. They should also decide what happens to any work-related recordings that are created, including where they can be stored and when they should be deleted.
The right answer will depend on the organisation and the environment. A blanket ban may be appropriate in some settings, while others may prefer a more limited restriction around particular meetings, locations or categories of information. Whatever approach the organisation takes, it should be clearly defined and understood by employees and visitors.
HMCTS can impose a clear prohibition because courts have particular security and recording requirements. Most workplaces will need a more tailored approach, but they should still decide how wearable recording devices fit within their privacy framework before a problem arises.
Smart glasses are already commercially available and increasingly common. The practical question for organisations is whether their privacy and information-governance arrangements are ready for them.
How Arbor Law can help
Arbor Law advises organisations on data protection, privacy governance and the practical implications of emerging technologies.
We can help businesses review existing policies, assess the risks created by wearable recording devices and put proportionate rules in place around their use.
FAQs
Are Meta smart glasses banned in courts in England and Wales?
Yes. His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service has banned Meta smart glasses from court buildings across England and Wales because of their ability to record images and video while being worn.
Can employees wear smart glasses at work?
That will depend on the employer’s policies and the circumstances in which the glasses are being used. Businesses should decide whether camera-enabled smart glasses are permitted in meetings, sensitive areas or other parts of the workplace, and whether recording requires prior approval.
Do smart glasses create UK GDPR risks?
They can. If smart glasses capture footage containing identifiable individuals, personal data may be involved. Depending on the purpose and context of the recording, organisations may need to consider lawful processing, transparency, proportionality and whether the recording complies with existing data protection and confidentiality rules.
Can smart glasses footage be included in a subject access request?
Potentially, yes. If footage contains an individual’s personal data and falls within the organisation’s control, it may need to be located, reviewed and disclosed in response to a subject access request, subject to any applicable exemptions and the need to protect third-party information.
Should businesses update workplace policies for smart glasses?
Many organisations should review whether existing policies already cover wearable recording devices. Policies written around phones, laptops and conventional cameras may not clearly address camera-enabled glasses, so businesses should consider permissions, storage, deletion, visitor rules and restrictions in sensitive areas.
Should employers ban smart glasses in the workplace?
A blanket ban may be appropriate in some settings, particularly where confidentiality, security or privacy risks are high. Other organisations may prefer more limited restrictions around particular meetings, locations or categories of information. The important point is that the organisation has a clear and understood position.
