Kylie Jenner’s $399 Meta Glasses collaboration has become a new flash point in the debate over wearable cameras, privacy and consent.
Critics worry that smart glasses make it difficult to know when someone is recording, while an unreleased facial-recognition feature has added to surveillance concerns.
Meta says facial recognition is not available in glasses sold today and that photos and videos remain on the user’s device unless the wearer shares them.
Meta hoped Kylie Jenner could help make its artificial intelligence glasses look less like a computer and more like a fashion accessory. Instead, her collaboration has become the latest focus of a growing backlash against wearable cameras.
The controversy intensified this week as critics took aim at the Meta Glasses by Kylie, a slim, oval frame designed with the cosmetics entrepreneur and reality television personality.
Comments on Jenner’s social media announcement included descriptions such as “predator glasses,” while a British activist group used her image in a guerrilla bus-stop advertisement declaring, “We’re always watching you.”
Singer Lorde also recently weighed in during a concert, telling her audience not to buy AI glasses.
Meta and eyewear manufacturer EssilorLuxottica introduced the broader Meta Glasses collection on June 23. The Kylie-designed Starfire edition starts at $399 and includes a 12-megapixel camera, microphones, speakers and Meta’s AI assistant using Jenner’s voice. It can take hands-free photos, record 3K video, make calls, play music, translate languages and answer questions about what the wearer sees.
The glasses are increasingly popular. More than 7 million pairs of Meta smart glasses reportedly sold in 2025, suggesting consumers see real value in being able to take pictures or get information without reaching for a phone.
But their growing presence is also making the privacy issue harder to ignore.
The people in front of the camera don’t have controls
Smartphones can record people without permission, but a person holding up a phone is usually easy to spot. Meta’s glasses are deliberately designed to resemble ordinary eyewear, making the camera much less noticeable.
A small white LED is supposed to light up when the camera is recording. Critics argue that the indicator can be difficult to see, particularly from a distance or in bright sunlight. Videos posted online have also demonstrated efforts to cover or obscure recording lights.
That has prompted fears about the glasses being used to secretly film dates, service workers, strangers and people in sensitive locations. Some social media creators already use the devices to record pranks and encounters with women, sometimes uploading the footage without the subjects’ knowledge.
The concern is not simply what the owner records. It is also what may be sent to Meta’s AI systems.
The complaints may be heard in court
A class-action lawsuit filed in March alleges that Meta misled consumers about how recordings could be reviewed. The complaint followed reports that workers employed by a Kenya-based subcontractor saw sensitive footage submitted through Meta AI, including images involving nudity and bathroom use. The allegations have not been proven in court.
Meta said media captured by the glasses stays on the user’s device unless the user chooses to share it with Meta or someone else. When users submit material to Meta AI, however, the company says contractors may sometimes review it to improve the service. Meta says it takes steps to filter identifying information and protect privacy.
An even larger controversy surrounds “NameTag,” a facial-recognition system Meta has explored for its glasses.
The proposed feature could help wearers remember someone they had previously met by recognizing the person’s face and displaying or announcing the name. Meta has promoted its potential usefulness for people who are blind, have low vision or have difficulty remembering faces.
But privacy advocates warn that facial recognition in ordinary-looking glasses could eventually allow wearers to identify strangers or collect biometric information without meaningful consent.