Are Multiple Countries Simultaneously Restricting Smart Glasses?

In just the first half of October, the global smart eyewear industry faced three significant challenges.

On October 2, Hans Anders—one of the largest eyewear retail chains in the Netherlands—announced the suspension of sales for Meta’s Ray-Ban smart glasses across its network of over 400 stores in the Netherlands and Belgium. Three days later, the Norwegian government stated it would submit a bill to parliament proposing a temporary ban on the use of AI-enabled glasses in public spaces such as parks, beaches, museums, and shopping malls. Two days after that, the Australian government announced it was considering a ban on the use of camera-equipped smart glasses in government workplaces.

Spanning just a few dozen hours and three different countries, these three distinct actions point to a single trend: the boundaries governing the use of devices that look like ordinary eyewear are being redefined.

Moving beyond the headlines, the following analysis focuses on the specific details, scope of restrictions, and regulatory characteristics of these measures across the different countries.

Seven Regions, Seven Policies

Norway

The latest—and strictest—measures come from the Nordic powerhouse, Norway.

Under the plan announced by the Norwegian government on October 5, bans will be imposed on venues where the public frequently gathers, such as parks, beaches, museums, shopping centers, and public event spaces. Restrictions will also apply to schools, kindergartens, playgrounds, and youth centers; clinics, as well as swimming pools and gyms equipped with changing rooms and showers, are under consideration, and even higher education institutions are being evaluated. Meanwhile, Norway will establish an expert panel to provide recommendations for permanent regulations.

Torgeir Micaelsen, Norway’s Minister of Digitalization and Public Governance, stated: "I am concerned that powerful new technologies are being introduced, and people might be photographed, filmed, or recorded without their knowledge. We do not want a society where people avoid certain places out of fear of being secretly recorded, photographed, or filmed."

In our view, Norway’s approach is highly effective and serves as a benchmark. Notably, schools in the capital, Oslo, banned the devices back in August, and Equinor—Norway’s largest company—has prohibited the glasses from its offices and offshore facilities.

The Netherlands

Hans Anders, the Dutch retailer behind this move, is a commercial business rather than a government agency, so the nature of the action differs; it is a suspension of sales rather than an outright ban. The spokesperson’s rationale was somewhat vague, citing the "ongoing public and political debate surrounding smart glasses."

For a retail chain to pull its best-selling product from over 400 shelves suggests that the perceived risks outweighed the potential profits. This highlights a key point: even in the absence of government regulations restricting the product, retailers may already be unwilling to shoulder the risks associated with selling it.

The UK & the US

As established technological powers, the UK and the US have taken a different approach.

Courts in England and Wales have banned Meta’s smart glasses based on existing rules regarding courtroom recording; meanwhile, the UK Cinema Association reported in August that some cinemas had begun restricting or banning camera-equipped glasses—a move motivated by anti-piracy concerns rather than privacy.

In the US, the New York State Unified Court System banned smart glasses from all court facilities starting July 20, requiring that any eyewear or head-mounted devices featuring cameras, microphones, or recording capabilities be surrendered at the entrance. Earlier, on May 20, the Texas Attorney General issued a civil investigative demand regarding Meta’s smart glasses, specifically targeting biometric issues: whether the indicator LED could be obscured, whether data collection occurred when the light was off, and how facial geometry data was handled. Texas is addressing these emerging scenarios by drawing on precedents from two past cases: Meta’s $1.4 billion settlement in July 2024 and Google’s $1.375 billion settlement in May 2025.

France

In response to the privacy concerns raised by smart glasses, France has pursued a strictly legal course of action: in September, Paris prosecutors opened an investigation following complaints that women were being filmed without consent by individuals wearing connected eyewear. Meanwhile, the European Data Protection Board (EDPB) commissioned a report on the "social acceptability" of smart glasses, and while some Members of the European Parliament have urged the European Commission to consider legislation, the Commission had not introduced a bill specifically targeting smart glasses as of October.

Australia

In September, the Australian federal government announced it was considering a ban on the use of camera-equipped smart glasses in government workplaces; Katy Gallagher, the Minister for the Public Service, has asked the Australian Public Service Commission to provide recommendations regarding a potential ban and any necessary exemptions. Additionally, the City of Sydney, in collaboration with four local councils, has extended such restrictions to include public swimming pools, gyms, childcare centers, and libraries.

Three distinct motivations that should not be conflated

Undoubtedly, the aforementioned actions can be collectively viewed as measures to protect privacy. However, analysis reveals that the actual drivers behind the regulatory moves in these countries stem from three distinct rationales that do not overlap.

The first category is based on the logic of privacy and the right to know about being filmed; this approach is exemplified by Norway, France, the Netherlands, and various local councils in Australia, and it currently represents the most common regulatory rationale. The core of this logic is not the question of "whether filming is permitted," but rather "whether others are aware of it."

Under this logic, smart glasses face restrictions not simply because they are capable of recording, but because they resemble ordinary eyewear, allowing the act of recording to occur without any visible external cues. In other words, recording is permissible provided the subject is aware that audio or video is being captured.

Currently, the standard safeguard across the industry is an LED recording indicator; however, this design is flimsy—almost paper-thin—in its effectiveness. "Light-blocking stickers" designed for popular models are openly sold on various platforms at very low prices; one specific product has sold over 6,000 units, with a description explicitly stating that it allows for "recording without light" and "avoids triggering alerts." Media tests have confirmed that once the sticker is applied, bystanders see no indication of recording, yet the device continues to capture video and audio as usual.

Meta subsequently released a firmware update that disables recording when the LED is obstructed. This patch highlights the core issue: regulators are targeting not the individuals who engage in surreptitious recording, but the product designs that make such covert recording difficult to detect.

The second category of logic concerns judicial order and anti-piracy measures; examples include courts in England and Wales and New York State, as well as movie theaters in the UK. These rules have little to do with privacy; instead, they protect the integrity of judicial evidence-gathering and cinema copyright. Fundamentally, the specific form of the eyewear is irrelevant—if a device is equipped with a camera or microphone, it must be surrendered. Such restrictions are long-term; they are unrelated to privacy controversies and will not be lifted simply because the product is improved.

The third category involves the protection of classified information and government security; examples include Australian federal government workplaces and biometric investigations in Texas. The primary concerns here are the act of entering a restricted space and removing information, as well as the destination of the facial geometry data captured by the device and whether that data is used to train models.

This demonstrates that the underlying logic behind regulations and restrictions varies across different countries and regions.

The anticipated challenge hasn't arrived just yet

Overall, the much-hyped recent wave of regulatory scrutiny has turned out to be far milder in practice than anticipated.

Consider the measures outlined earlier: the EU is still conducting an assessment; the UK and US have imposed bans only in specific locations; France has launched an investigation; the Australian federal government has banned use in government workplaces; the Netherlands has halted retail sales; and Norway is proposing a temporary ban in certain public areas.

Take Norway—the country with the strictest stance—as an example: it has explicitly stated there will be no blanket ban, and private use remains permitted. Normal usage is unaffected in scenarios where there is no risk of filming others without consent, and exemptions are being carved out for social welfare purposes and vulnerable groups. In other words, Norwegian lawmakers do not aim to ban the eyewear itself, but rather to designate specific locations as "eyewear-free zones."

As for the "total sales ban" that everyone feared most? It hasn't happened—not in a single country.

Counterpoint Research estimates that consumer spending on wearable devices will exceed $1 trillion between 2026 and 2032. Sales of Meta’s Ray-Ban line are set to surpass 7 million pairs in 2025, and according to DigiTimes, Meta is negotiating with EssilorLuxottica to double annual production capacity from 10 million to 20 million pairs.

Do you see ? On one side, courts, legislatures, and retailers are simultaneously drawing red lines; on the other, the industry is doubling its production capacity and attracting major capital bets.

Strictly speaking, this round of regulation is not about extinguishing a fire, but rather about defining the most reasonable boundaries—representing a reactive adjustment of existing laws and regulations to new technological products.

According to IDC projections, global shipments of smart glasses will exceed 23.68 million units by 2026, with Chinese manufacturers accounting for approximately 22.67 million units—representing 45% of the global market. In 2025, China shipped 2.46 million units, with Chinese brands already capturing a 23% share of the global market.

In conclusion

Looking back at these seven measures, a common thread emerges: none of them aim to ban the eyewear itself. Instead, they all address the same fundamental question—how to regulate the use of cameras worn on people's faces, rather than prohibiting them entirely.

For Sotech, one part of the answer lies in putting the choice back in the hands of the user.

We offer a range of camera-free smart glasses—such as the G36, G49, and G55 models. Weighing less than 50 grams and offering a fit similar to standard eyewear, they are suitable for direct sunlight and feature an understated design ideal for all-day wear, outdoor activities, and professional settings.

We invite you to explore Sotech’s line of camera-free smart glasses.