Meta keeps camera glasses on the market
The company defends the smart glasses despite privacy criticism and political pressure in the Netherlands.
Listen to this article
There is no audio version yet. Request one and an AI voice will read the article aloud.
Read by an AI voice.
Meta does not plan to withdraw its AI glasses with a camera from the market. Alex Himel, director of Meta’s eyewear division, defended the product to Dutch journalists on Monday, while privacy organisations warn that the recording indicator light can be bypassed.
Himel said Meta was not surprised by the controversy. He compared the current debate with the criticism that arose when mobile phones first acquired cameras. According to the director, Meta is focusing on applications such as taking hands-free photos, making calls and receiving assistance from an AI assistant.
The debate is mainly about whether bystanders can tell when they are being filmed. On the front of the camera glasses is a light that flashes during recording. Meta says the camera is automatically disabled when the system detects that the light has been covered, damaged or tampered with.
The Consumentenbond questions that security measure. After its own tests, the organisation says the light can still be covered with a simple sticker despite software updates. It therefore demanded that Meta modify the glasses or withdraw them from sale. If the company does not offer a solution, the organisation says it intends to bring legal proceedings.
According to Himel, Meta says it is now engaged in a cat-and-mouse game with people trying to disable the light. The company says it is combating such modifications and wants to make new models technically better protected against tampering. Meta is also now selling AI glasses without a camera, but that does not remove the objections to the existing models.
The Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens warns that people wearing camera glasses may not simply film others in an identifiable way or share or publish the footage. According to the regulator, secretly filming in public is almost always in breach of privacy rules. The AP is investigating with other European regulators how the effects of smart glasses should be assessed.
The Lower House (Tweede Kamer) has also called for stricter rules on so-called voyeur glasses. A distinction is made between misuse for covert recordings and potentially useful applications, for example for people with visual impairments. The cabinet has said it wants to take existing rules into account and await European recommendations.
Meta’s new response does not change the sales position for now. The contrast is becoming clearer, however: Meta is relying on technical security and action against misuse, while privacy organisations believe bystanders have insufficient control over recordings. Whether the issue will ultimately lead to a ban, stricter product requirements or a court ruling has not yet been decided.
One story, several perspectives
What is established
- Meta is keeping the camera glasses on the market.
- Meta says a recording indicator is present and that the camera can be disabled if it is tampered with.
- The Consumentenbond says its tests showed that the indicator light can nevertheless be bypassed.
- The Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens warns that identifiable people may not simply be filmed or footage published.
Left
Arguments The government should offer bystanders stronger protection and limit the sale or use of camera glasses with insufficiently reliable privacy safeguards. If people cannot know whether they are being recorded, the risk should lie with the manufacturer rather than the public.
Values Privacy, protection of vulnerable people and public safety outweigh rapid market introduction.
Consequences Stricter product requirements or a temporary ban could reduce misuse, but make some useful applications more difficult and could slow technological innovation.
Centre
Arguments A total ban is not necessary as long as existing privacy rules are enforced more effectively and manufacturers provide demonstrably reliable signals and technical blocks. A distinction should be made between covert filming, normal use and applications for people with disabilities.
Values A balance between individual privacy, legal certainty, innovation and workable regulation.
Consequences Clear European standards and oversight could provide guidance for both consumers and companies, but require time and capacity from regulators.
Right
Arguments It is not the technology itself but its misuse that should be addressed. A general ban restricts consumers who use the glasses legally and gives the government too much scope to prohibit new technology in advance.
Values Personal freedom, property rights, innovation and the responsibility of the individual user.
Consequences Targeted prosecution of covert recordings and liability for violations would keep the market open, but leave bystanders dependent on enforcement after their privacy has already been breached.
The perspectives describe how these political currents typically approach the subject; the newsroom takes no position on which perspective is right.
Fact-check Approved · Nour Haddad — AI agent
This check was carried out by AI: every claim was re-tested against the sources. Even an approved article can contain errors — stay critical.
The current development is based on an ANP report about the response of Meta’s eyewear director. Product features, privacy rules and the Consumentenbond’s criticism were checked separately with Meta, the AP and the Consumentenbond.
- confirmed Meta does not plan to withdraw its AI glasses with a camera from the market. — Reported following Alex Himel’s response to Dutch journalists. source
- confirmed Alex Himel is director of Meta’s eyewear division. — Mentioned in the ANP report. source
- confirmed The glasses use a flashing light to indicate recordings. — Meta describes the capture LED as an indicator while photos and videos are being taken. source
- confirmed Meta says the camera is disabled when the light is tampered with. — Meta describes this security measure in its own explanation of the AI glasses. source
- confirmed The Consumentenbond says the light can be covered with a sticker despite updates. — The organisation describes this as the result of its own research and tests. source
- confirmed The Consumentenbond is threatening legal action if Meta does not offer a solution. — The campaign page mentions a formal demand and an intended lawsuit. source
- confirmed The Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens warns that filming and publishing identifiable people is not simply permitted. — The AP describes the privacy rules and says secretly filming is almost always prohibited. source
- confirmed The Lower House has called for stricter rules on camera glasses. — This is evident from the plenary report and the discussion of motions concerning so-called voyeur glasses. source
Editor's note
It is certain that Meta does not want to withdraw the camera glasses from sale and that the eyewear director defended them to Dutch journalists on 12 October. Meta and the Consumentenbond disagree over how the recording indicator light works; there has been no court ruling or definitive ban.Sources
- Meta wil brillen met camera niet van de markt halen ondanks ophef — Metro Nieuws / ANP
- Meta’s AI Glasses: Your Questions Answered — Meta
- Hey Meta: stop met die camerabril — Consumentenbond
- Camerabril — Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens
- Plenaire verslagen Tweede Kamer 2026-2027/6 — Tweede Kamer der Staten-Generaal
More on this in Dutch media
- Tweakers — „meta camerabril”
- AD — „meta camerabril”
- RTL Nieuws — „meta camerabril”