Key facts
- Meta's Ray-Ban AI smart glasses are facing legal and regulatory pressure over privacy concerns.
- A Swedish investigation revealed that human contractors reviewed intimate footage captured by the smart glasses.
- The footage included videos of users undressing, using the toilet, and handling sensitive financial documents.
- Meta's marketing for the glasses emphasized privacy and user control.
- The UK's Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) is demanding answers from Meta regarding data protection.
- A class action lawsuit has been filed in the US alleging privacy violations and false advertising.
Meta is facing significant legal and regulatory challenges concerning the privacy practices of its Ray-Ban AI smart glasses. A joint investigation by Swedish newspapers Svenska Dagbladet and Göteborgs-Posten revealed that human contractors at a subcontractor facility in Nairobi, Kenya, were reviewing intimate footage captured by the smart glasses. These workers, employed by data annotation firm Sama, were tasked with labeling visual content to improve Meta's AI, but described the job as deeply uncomfortable due to the personal nature of the recordings.
The footage reportedly included videos of users undressing, using the toilet, engaging in sexual activity, and handling sensitive financial documents like bank cards. This practice contrasts with Meta's marketing, which emphasized privacy with phrases like “designed for privacy, controlled by you” and “built for your privacy.”
In response to the investigation, the UK's Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) confirmed it was writing to Meta to seek answers regarding its compliance with UK data protection law. Simultaneously, a class action lawsuit was filed in the United States by plaintiffs Gina Bartone of New Jersey and Mateo Canu of California, represented by Clarkson Law Firm. The lawsuit alleges that Meta violated privacy laws and engaged in false advertising by making promises about user control that were not met by the product's actual data practices, describing the product as a "surveillance nightmare" disguised as fashion.