EU Privacy Board Tells Smart Glasses Makers to Make Recording Obvious

The European Data Protection Board (EDPB) adopted a statement on smart glasses on October 13, 2026. The board is made up of representatives of the national data protection authorities of EU countries, plus the European Data Protection Supervisor. Its Statement 1/2026 says makers of the glasses have their own duties under the EU's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). So do providers of linked apps and AI services. They cannot pass those duties on to the people who wear the glasses. The board also wants the glasses to make recording obvious to people nearby.

The statement is guidance, not a new law. The EDPB calls it an initial statement that gives preliminary guidance to users, manufacturers and service providers. AFP described it as non-binding, in a report carried by RTÉ. It bans no product and sets no deadlines.

Alongside it, the board published a report by Yann Bruna, a sociologist at the University of Paris-Nanterre. It was written by an outside expert and does not necessarily reflect the board's position. The EDPB says the research found the glasses are sometimes used to watch other people and gather evidence.

Who is responsible under EU privacy law?

Under the GDPR, the party that decides why and how personal data is used is called the controller. The statement says the wearer, the maker of the glasses or the provider of a linked service can each be a controller. Sometimes two or more share that role.

For wearers, the statement draws a line:

• Purely personal use falls under the GDPR's "household exemption," so the law does not apply. The board's examples are sharing a video only with family or friends, or translating in a private setting.
• Wider use makes the wearer a controller with full GDPR duties. Examples include posting footage on a public social media account, or using the glasses for official, professional or political work.

The board says the exemption must be read narrowly. Even where the GDPR does not apply, other laws can, including criminal law.

Makers and AI providers stay bound either way. The statement gives an example: an AI service that analyzes a camera image showing other people, to answer the wearer's question about their surroundings. Such companies should not rely on the wearer to meet their own duties toward bystanders, the board says.

How should smart glasses warn people nearby?

The board says traditional privacy notices do not seem enough to inform bystanders. A company has no way to contact strangers who appear in a wearer's video. It also says today's indicators leave many bystanders unaware that their data is being processed.

The statement suggests combining several signals:

• A light that is visible in many lighting conditions and stays on long enough to notice. It should show when the glasses capture images for an AI assistant, too. Recording should not be possible while the light is covered.
• Sounds, such as a shutter click, or commands that must be spoken out loud.
• Phone alerts. Some apps already detect nearby glasses from their Bluetooth signals. Makers could send a signal while the glasses record. The board says this should never be the only warning.
• Design cues that help people tell smart glasses from ordinary ones.

The statement notes that a white light can be mistaken for a reflection or sun glare. People with visual impairments may find a light hard or impossible to notice. Any such measure should be hard to get around and kept up to date. EDPB chair Anu Talus said people "deserve clear warnings, not hidden surprises."

Can companies use bystanders' footage to train AI?

The statement casts doubt on it. Every use of personal data under the GDPR needs a legal basis. Consent is one option. But the board says a maker or service provider would struggle to get valid consent from strangers it has no relationship with. Consent gathered after a recording would not count.

Another basis, legitimate interests, means weighing a company's interests against people's rights. The board says this would be particularly hard to show for AI training. The same goes for commercial uses beyond the service the wearer asked for. Bystanders would not expect either, it says.

The statement also encourages extra safeguards:

• limits on continuous recording, live streaming and how long data is kept
• blurring or hiding bystanders' identities, with processing on the device where possible
• storage switched off by default on glasses built mainly for real-time help
• geofencing, meaning limits on features in sensitive places
• "privacy frictions" that slow down sharing to social media

How do Meta's glasses compare?

Meta's glasses, made with Ray-Ban maker EssilorLuxottica, are the most popular in the world, AFP reported. In a July 2026 FAQ, Meta says each pair has a white "capture LED." It blinks whenever content is captured for the wearer's gallery and has no off switch, Meta says.

Meta also says the camera is disabled if the light is blocked, starting with its second generation of glasses. In July it said it was updating the glasses to disable the camera if the light is tampered with or destroyed.

In late August, Meta began rolling out an update designed to stop a recording if the light is covered after a video has started, Tom's Guide reported. Meta also started a campaign to explain what the light means. Meta says it has taken multiple steps to stop users tampering with the light, AFP reported.

Do national regulators go further?

Some do. Germany's federal and state data protection authorities discussed smart glasses on September 23, 2026. In a press release the next day, they said wearers who rely on consent must inform people in advance, outside purely personal use. A recording light is not enough for that, they said. They added that AI training on other people's data usually lacks a legal basis. AI facial recognition in public spaces would not be allowed, they said. They said German or European lawmakers should take up the issue.

Norway's regulator also sits on the EDPB for GDPR matters, without a vote, according to the board's member list. Norway's government said in early October that it wants a temporary ban on smart glasses in certain public places, as covered earlier.

What happens next?

The EDPB says it will keep studying privacy concerns raised by smart glasses and other video devices that raise similar legal questions. It says further guidance may be useful but gave no date.

Dutch consumer group Consumentenbond said on October 15 that the Amsterdam district court will hear its case against Meta on November 26, 2026. It wants the glasses and their default settings changed to meet privacy law. It said it would seek a sales ban if Meta says that is not possible.

In the United States, California's governor vetoed SB 1130 on September 30, the Associated Press reported. The bill would have required a recording indicator on smart glasses and other wearables from 2028. The EDPB statement cites that bill in a footnote as an example of proposals elsewhere.

The smart glasses bans and rules tracker logs each of these steps as it happens.