England and Wales Ban Meta Smart Glasses From All Courtrooms
HMCTS implements strict confiscation policy to prevent covert recording and real-time witness coaching.
His Majesty's Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS) has banned Meta smart glasses from all criminal, civil, and family courts and tribunals across England and Wales. The move protects the integrity of judicial proceedings by eliminating the risk of surreptitious recording.
Under the new regulations, any individual attempting to enter a court building while wearing or carrying the glasses will have the devices confiscated at the entrance. Court staff will hold the hardware and return it to the owner only upon their departure from the premises. An HMCTS spokesperson stated the prohibition is necessary because there are "clear restrictions on taking images or videos within courts and tribunals."
Recording court proceedings without authorization is a criminal offense and can be prosecuted as contempt of court. While smartphones remain permitted inside courtrooms, the judiciary has drawn a sharp distinction between handheld devices and wearables. HMCTS notes that smartphones are allowed because they cannot be worn on the face to film covertly, whereas smart glasses enable a level of invisibility that threatens the privacy of participants and the security of the court.
The Risk of Covert Influence
The ban follows a specific incident in a London High Court where a witness, Laimonas Jakstys, was caught using smart glasses to receive real-time coaching during cross-examination. By utilizing the device's built-in speakers, the witness received live instructions, highlighting a vulnerability where wearable AI can be used to manipulate testimony and undermine the adversarial process of the law.
A Broader Pattern of Restriction
This judicial crackdown is part of a wider trend of institutions restricting Meta's wearable technology. In the United States, New York state has already implemented a similar ban on smart glasses within its court buildings to prevent secret recordings.
Within the UK, the backlash extends beyond the legal system. The pub chain Wetherspoons, along with various high-end restaurants, theaters, and music venues, have introduced their own bans or restrictions. These measures follow a University of Sydney study by Dr. Milica Stilinovic, which detailed how "pick up artists" have used the devices to secretly film and harass women, leading critics to label the hardware as "pervert glasses."
Implications for Wearable AI
The decision underscores a growing tension between the rapid adoption of wearable AI and established legal privacy protections. By treating smart glasses as a unique threat compared to smartphones, the judiciary acknowledges that the form factor of the device creates a specific risk for covert surveillance. As AI integration into eyewear becomes more seamless, courts may face further challenges in balancing technological convenience with the absolute requirement for transparency and security in the courtroom.