Meta Smart Glasses Barred From Courts in England and Wales

Court buildings in England and Wales are barring visitors from bringing Meta smart glasses inside, placing a clear boundary around wearable devices that can record audio and video while resembling ordinary eyewear.

Under the court service approach reported this week, security staff can take the glasses at the entrance and return them when the owner leaves. The rule applies across criminal, civil and family court buildings managed by His Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service.

Why smart glasses create a different problem

Mobile phones can also record proceedings, but they are visible devices that users normally hold in their hands. Camera-equipped glasses can operate from the wearer's point of view and may be difficult for witnesses, jurors or court staff to recognize. That makes enforcement harder in spaces where confidentiality and the integrity of evidence are essential.

Recording inside a courtroom is already tightly restricted. Unauthorized images or audio can expose witnesses, identify protected people, disrupt a trial or lead to material being shared without legal context. A wearable camera adds the risk that recording could occur before anyone notices.

Meta's glasses include cameras, microphones and connected software. Their consumer uses range from taking photos to receiving assistance and sharing a first-person view. Those functions may be convenient in public settings, but a court has different obligations from a street, shop or private home.

Fairness during testimony

The concern is not limited to recording. Connected glasses may also display or relay information. A person giving evidence could potentially receive prompts without an obvious phone or laptop in view, creating questions about whether answers are genuinely their own.

A dispute earlier in 2026 brought attention to that possibility when a High Court claimant was accused of receiving assistance while wearing smart glasses during cross-examination. The claimant denied using the device to obtain answers. Whatever happened in that individual case, it illustrated why judges and security staff want a rule they can enforce before a hearing begins.

The court service does not need to prove that every wearer intends to record or receive coaching. Security rules often remove a capability that creates an unacceptable risk, just as some buildings restrict cameras, weapons or other equipment regardless of the visitor's stated intention.

Privacy questions beyond courtrooms

The decision arrives during a broader debate about wearable cameras. Restaurants, theatres, schools and workplaces are considering how to handle devices whose recording indicators can be subtle. People may reasonably expect to know when they are being filmed, particularly children and individuals discussing sensitive matters.

UK data protection rules can apply when captured images are uploaded or processed by online services. However, legal remedies after publication do not prevent the initial recording. Venue policies therefore serve as a first layer of protection.

Accessibility also deserves careful treatment. Some users may rely on connected eyewear or other devices for assistance. Courts must balance security with duties toward disabled visitors, which could require an approved alternative or an individual accommodation rather than a blanket denial of access.

What visitors should expect

Anyone attending a court in England or Wales should check current security guidance before travelling and should not assume that smart glasses will be treated like ordinary prescription frames. If the device is needed for accessibility, the safest course is to contact the court in advance.

Lawyers and journalists should follow the same cautious approach. Professional status does not create a general permission to record proceedings, and judges retain control over what technology may be used in their courtrooms.

A policy likely to spread

Wearable technology will become harder to distinguish from normal clothing as cameras and displays shrink. That will push more institutions to publish explicit rules instead of relying on signs that prohibit only phones or conventional cameras.

The court ban is therefore larger than one Meta product. It marks a shift from regulating an action after it occurs to controlling discreet recording capability at the door. Other privacy-sensitive venues will be watching how the policy works, how exceptions are handled and whether manufacturers can make recording status more obvious.

Reporting was checked against The Guardian, HMCTS public guidance and UK parliamentary material on camera-enabled smart glasses.