Smart Glasses In The Mainstream

In Australia, ‘smart glasses’ have recently become available from several major retailers such as Amazon, JB Hi-Fi and Oscar Wylee, featuring brands like Ray-Ban, Oakley, and Meta. Some of these glasses integrate features such as augmented reality, AI-powered features, built-in head tracking, virtual screens, high-definition point of view cameras, open-ear audio, and voice control allowing users to capture photos and videos, make calls, real-time translation and interact with digital assistants without using a phone. Future developments are likely to include more advanced facial recognition capabilities and expanded data collection functions. With cheaper options such as Kmart’s $89 Anko glasses now available, it’s likely we’ll see more smart glasses, with even more functions, appearing in cafes and shops.

Given that smart glasses are virtually indistinguishable from ordinary eyewear and the public backlash over concerns about being covertly recorded in public places, questions about surveillance, consent and personal autonomy are becoming increasingly important.

A number of businesses have voluntarily responded by clamping down on smart glasses on their premises by imposing terms of entry and contractual restrictions. In one such example last month, the Brisbane City Council banned the use of AI smart glasses (including all camera-enabled devices, including wearable technology, phones and cameras) to secretly film people in its public pools. Under the new conditions of entry, people will still be able to bring smart glasses into the pool but will not be able to film and record without permission.

However, smart glasses have many features beneficial to wearers including functionality enabling hands-free calls and live captioning for phone calls; augmented reality technology to float captions into the wearer’s line of sight aiding people with hearing issues; and capturing conversations and producing transcripts for people with visual, hearing or cognitive impairments. Several other use cases also being developed with the technology potentially offer great benefits to a large cross section of the community. In July, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg said people who don’t wear smart glasses in the future will be at a “pretty significant cognitive disadvantage”.

Given the benefits this technology offers, the outright banning of such wearable technology potentially discriminates against people with a disability and those with a genuine need for the benefits offered.

Clearly, the promised convenience and innovation these smart glasses offer must be balanced with the significant privacy concerns raised by their use. By making surveillance far less visible, these devices may enable recording without bystanders realising it and may reduce the extent to which individuals can control information about themselves. What happens when an individual is recorded, monitored or identified by AI technology without their knowledge or consent?

Currently, smart glasses are not banned in Australia, but restrictions exist in sensitive settings, and privacy laws are under review due to these emerging concerns. An outright ban on patrons using smart glasses, whether recording or not, threatens to violate anti-discrimination laws and might constitute unlawful discrimination under Australia’s Disability Discrimination Act 1992. In other jurisdictions, Courts in England, Wales and New York have announced a ban on AI glasses and will confiscate them on entry to the court buildings with the taking images or videos in court buildings, without official permission, prohibited and can be prosecuted as contempt of court in the UK.

Traditionally, Australian laws have only offered fragmented protection for privacy and whilst there are laws dealing with surveillance devices, confidentiality, defamation and data protection, there has been no broad, standalone right to sue for invasion of privacy. At a State level, surveillance device laws in New South Wales, Victoria, Western Australia, South Australia, and the Northern Territory prohibits intentional use of “listening” or “optical surveillance” devices to listen to or record others’ private conversations, or to record your own private conversation with another person without consent. However, in Tasmania and the Australian Capital Territory the Listening Device Acts don’t currently apply to optical surveillance devices, and in Queensland, the Invasion of Privacy Act only prohibits unauthorised use of listening devices.

In response to these emerging concerns over AI and digital safety, the Australian Government has just announced that it is on track to introduce a world-leading ban on smart glasses in Commonwealth workplaces. After seeking advice from the Public Service Commission, Minister Katy Gallagher advised that “The APS should always set the standard as a model employer. Technology is changing rapidly, and as a major employer the Commonwealth needs to make sure our workplace policies keep pace”. Senior government sources said this would result in smart glasses being banned exempt in exceptional circumstances, which would trickle down into the private sector. The Government has also announced that it will also open consultation on its proposed National AI standards this week. Industry Minister Tim Ayres said the standards are about ensuring Australia captures the enormous opportunities of artificial intelligence while maintaining the trust and confidence of the community.

Given the significant changes to the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) we reported previously which saw the new statutory tort for serious invasion of privacy introduced in 2025, these further consultations on mooted National AI standards and banning of smart glasses would seem to go even further in tipping the balance in favour of individuals personal autonomy and privacy. Currently, individuals have a statutory cause of action in tort against another person if that person’s privacy has been invaded by intruding upon their seclusion and misusing that information where the person would have had a reasonable expectation of privacy in all of the circumstances and the invasion of privacy was intentional or reckless, and serious.

We would readily expect that certain circumstances may develop in which smart glasses are used to identify people, collect personal information or compile detailed profiles without their knowledge and potentially may constitute an intrusion upon seclusion or a misuse of private information. Although not all recording will be unlawful, the new statutory tort for serious invasion of privacy is expected to receive judicial consideration in the near future in such circumstances. We would expect that courts may well be prepared to intervene where private images are disseminated without consent in circumstances capable of causing significant harm, irrespective of the outcome of the proposed new ban on smart glasses and overlap with the proposed National AI standards.