When Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg appeared in court in Los Angeles on Wednesday, he did so with a team that appeared to be wearing Meta smart glasses with a Ray-Ban camera. Judge Carolyn Kuhl was concerned. According to CNBC, Kuhl warned anyone filming with the glasses, “If you did that, you have to take it down, or you will be held in contempt of court.” Kuhl also ordered everyone wearing the AI smart glasses to remove them. Even after the warning, at least one person was seen wearing glasses around the jury in the courtroom hallway, although plaintiff’s attorney Rachel Lanier was told the glasses were off the record at the time.
Glasses with recording capabilities have raised concerns about privacy, surveillance, and doxxing in all kinds of places, and the court is no exception. Earlier this month, a user on the r/legaladvice subreddit shared a post asking for advice on reporting a plaintiff wearing Meta glasses to court. Additionally, in recent months, several states have moved to specifically ban smart glasses in the courts, including the US District Courts for the District of Hawaii and the Western District of Wisconsin. The Forsyth County Court in North Carolina also banned smart glasses last year. The Colorado District Court is also considering the ban.
As smart glasses become more common, however, keeping courtrooms safe from unwanted recordings can be an uphill battle.
While the ban on smart glasses in the courts may be a recent development, limitations on cameras and recordings are nothing new. Since 1946, Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 53 has prohibited the recording or broadcasting of criminal proceedings in federal courts. In 1972, the United States Judiciary Congress also adopted a ban on recording and broadcasting in and around courtrooms that included both civil and criminal cases. The only exception to those rules was in 2020, when the Judiciary Conference temporarily allowed teleconferences due to the covid-19 pandemic, although that exception expired in 2023.
At the state level, laws regarding courtroom cameras vary from state to state and have changed over the years. Most states allow recording in a specific location. However, there are often restrictions, such as requiring a judge’s permission, prohibiting the recording of certain aspects of a trial, or only allowing the recording of certain individuals, such as members of the media.
There are a variety of reasons to turn off court records. For example, the presence of cameras may be used to intimidate witnesses or jurors, or to motivate people to behave or speak differently if they know they are on camera. Privacy and security can also be an issue, especially in cases involving children, who are often allowed to remain anonymous in court records. When worn in court, smart glasses like Meta’s could be used to record proceedings without the judge’s knowledge or consent, potentially compromising the privacy of everyone involved in the case.
Darío Maestro, legal director of the Surveillance Technology Oversight Project (STOP), commented to him The Verge that smart glasses are no exception to the ban on recording. “Courts have long restricted recording devices for good reason – to protect witnesses, jurors, and the integrity of the case. No judge would allow someone to sit in the gallery pointing a smartphone at the witness stand, even if the camera’s app is turned off. Glasses that can record covertly deserve at least the same scrutiny.”
Although the phone can easily be put away, however, someone who needs corrective lenses may find it difficult to take off the smart glasses. The more common the mirrors, the more difficult the rules can be to follow. Meta has sold 7 million pairs of smart glasses by 2025, and other companies are taking notice – Apple is reportedly aiming to release the glasses in 2027.
“No judge can allow someone to sit in the gallery pointing a smartphone at the witness stand”
The mirrors usually have an LED indicator that should be visible when recording, but it can be disabled without authorization and, even when working, is easily missed. The features, on the other hand, are getting more invasive: Earlier this month, an internal memo from Meta surfaced indicating that the company plans to add facial recognition, allowing users to recognize people by name.
Judge Kuhl has made it clear that he will not allow smart glasses to be recorded in court. Outright bans on smart glasses in court are still rare in the US, so orders like this are likely to be the most direct and widely used strategy to keep smart glasses out of court for now.
“Judges generally have a high degree of control over what materials and tools are allowed in their courts, and I would expect that the majority would respond as Judge Kuhl did here very strongly against any attempts to improperly record proceedings,” Alan Butler, executive director and president of the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), explained in a statement. The Verge.
Butler added, “The fact that Meta’s legal team seems to have come to this case in a case about the dangers posed by their system equipped with invasive glasses that put judges and others in the courtroom at risk is a little on the nose. But the Judge’s response was refreshing and shows that such behavior should not be tolerated.”
