This post was originally published on this site.
His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service has banned Meta smart glasses from court buildings across England and Wales, with security staff instructed to confiscate the devices on entry and return them when the wearer leaves.
“There are clear restrictions on taking images or videos within courts and tribunals which is why the use of Meta glasses is prohibited,” an HMCTS spokesperson said.
HMCTS runs the criminal, civil and family courts in England and Wales. Smartphones remain permitted in court buildings, provided they are not used to record hearings. HMCTS is not extending that exception to smart glasses because the glasses can record while being worn.
Section 41 of the Criminal Justice Act 1925 prohibits taking a photograph, or making a portrait or sketch, of judges, jurors, witnesses or parties to proceedings. The prohibition applies in the courtroom, in the building, in the precincts of the building and to images of a person entering or leaving. Section 9 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 covers sound recordings made in court. Unauthorised recording can result in contempt of court proceedings.
The issue has already surfaced in a UK courtroom. Earlier this year a claimant in a High Court case was accused of using smart glasses to receive coaching while giving evidence under cross-examination. He denied the allegation and said the glasses were not connected to his phone.
The HMCTS decision follows a comparable restriction introduced by New York’s court system last month.
Meta’s Ray-Ban glasses take photographs and record video while worn. Meta says a pulsing LED activates during recording and that tamper-detection technology stops users covering it. The company has shipped more than seven million pairs, and the devices account for more than 80 per cent of the global AI eyewear market, figures reported as the glasses became the centre of a widening privacy row.
Clara Westbrook, partner and head of privacy at Arbor Law, said the ban points to a gap between the technology and the rules governing it. Westbrook has more than 20 years’ experience advising organisations on European and English data protection law, was previously a director in the international privacy centre at Warner Bros. Discovery, and has held senior data protection roles at Yum! Brands and Richemont. She holds a part-time senior counsel position at Burberry.
“This week’s court ban shows how far behind the law is on this technology,” Westbrook said. “Most people in a meeting, a client office or a public space have no way of knowing someone nearby is recording, these glasses look like ordinary eyewear. That’s a real problem for data protection: if personal data is captured and stored without people’s knowledge, that’s potentially unlawful processing under UK GDPR, and it can breach a company’s own confidentiality and IT policies.”
She added: “It also creates a headache few organisations have thought through, footage sitting on someone’s wearable is personal data too, and it could fall within scope of a subject access request. Courts moving to ban them outright is a sign other institutions and employers need to get ahead of this now, not after something goes wrong.”
Under the Information Commissioner’s Office guidance on the right of access, organisations must provide personal information held on staff personal equipment where they remain the controller, and must supply a copy of footage containing a requester’s data unless an exemption applies. The ICO says footage that identifies other people will usually need to be redacted.
The court ban lands in a year in which UK firms have been warned about tightening rules on data and AI, and follows the introduction of a statutory data protection complaints process under the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025, which took effect on 19 June 2026.
