Why UK Courts Are Banning Meta Smart Glasses

If you walk into a court building in England or Wales wearing Meta smart glasses, staff will take them from you at the door. You will get them back when you leave. The rule applies to all court and tribunal buildings run by the government's Courts and Tribunals Service.

The reason goes back to old laws. Since 1925, it has been illegal to take photographs in court. Since 1981, it has also been illegal to record court proceedings without permission. These laws were written long before anyone imagined glasses with built-in cameras.

Smartphones are allowed inside courts, but only on the condition that they are not used to record. Security staff can see when someone lifts a phone and points it at a witness or a judge. With smart glasses, there is no obvious sign that recording has started. The camera sits on your face, hidden in what looks like an ordinary pair of glasses. That makes it almost impossible for staff to tell the difference between someone who is recording and someone who is not.

The problem became real earlier this year. A judge accused a man named Laimonas Jakstys of wearing smart glasses in the High Court and receiving "coaching" through them while giving evidence in a legal dispute over a property company. The allegation was that someone outside the courtroom was sending him guidance in real time as he testified.

England and Wales are not the only places taking action. New York's state court system announced a ban on smart glasses in court buildings in the month before August 2026. Maryland started its own ban on April 7, 2026, requiring that smart glasses with recording capability be powered off, kept out of sight, or banned entirely, depending on the courtroom.

The backlash extends beyond courts. The pub chain Wetherspoons and other UK venues have already banned the glasses over privacy concerns. Critics have called the devices "spyware." Meta sold 7 million pairs last year, priced between £269 and £469.

UK court buildings already have strict security. Visitors cannot bring weapons, glass bottles, or most liquids. E-bikes and e-scooters are barred. Most electronics, including phones, smart watches, and tablets, must be handed in at security, though laptops may be allowed after checks.

One big question remains: how will security staff identify smart glasses that look like normal glasses? Meta makes the glasses in partnership with Ray-Ban, and the frames are hard to tell apart from standard eyewear. The Courts and Tribunals Service has not said how staff will spot them, which could mean relying on people to admit they are wearing them or doing random checks.

The broader context here is that technology is moving faster than the rules can keep up. Wearable cameras have spread into many areas of life before institutions have figured out how to handle them. Courts face especially high stakes because they must protect witnesses, jurors, and the fairness of legal proceedings.

Meta has not publicly responded to the court bans in England and Wales or the similar restrictions in the United States. There is no evidence the company has proposed technical fixes, such as a light that turns on when recording or a feature that switches off the camera in restricted areas like courts. Without knowing whether such fixes are possible, it is unclear whether courts might ever accept smart glasses, or whether wearing them on your face will always be a dealbreaker.

With 7 million pairs already sold and more people buying them, the courts' policy is likely to be tested simply by the number of visitors who show up wearing them. The rule is simple. Making it work may be the hard part.