In August, HM Courts and Tribunals Service banned Meta’s smart glasses from every criminal, civil and family court building in England and Wales. Security staff now confiscate the devices on entry and return them on exit, while smartphones are still allowed provided they are not used to record. Smart glasses were given no such exception, because it is much harder to see when they are capturing video or audio.
The ban followed a case earlier this year when reports describe a claimant/witness’s evidence being rejected or affected after the judge concluded that he had been assisted/coached in the Insolvency and Companies Court
Whilst a single case does not make a trend, it illustrates the underlying difficulty. Rules against recording in court (contrary to section 41 of the Criminal Justice Act 1925) traditionally relied on someone noticing a raised phone, but smart glasses remove the visible act and quietly undermine a good deal of current workplace policy.
Courts are not alone. J D Wetherspoon has told customers not to use the recording functionality of smart glasses across its 800-plus pubs, while ATG Theatres has said wearers may be asked to remove them during performances.
If organisations that manage a room for a few hours feel compelled to act, employers running workplaces every day, particularly those handling client confidentiality, financial data or trade secrets, have rather more reason to consider their position.
The devices themselves explain the concern, as current models combine high-definition cameras, microphones and speakers with AI features such as text recognition and real-time translation. The small LED that indicates recording can be easily missed at any distance, or could be covered altogether.
The legal framework already applies
Under UK GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018, section 3, as amended by the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025, images, video and audio recordings will constitute personal data where they contain information relating to an identified or identifiable individual. Where they do, the usual data protection principles, including lawfulness, fairness and transparency apply.
Where data protection law applies, covert recording raises obvious issues of lawfulness, fairness and transparency. Whether it is lawful will depend on matters including the purpose of the recording, the applicable lawful basis, necessity and proportionality, and the individual’s reasonable expectations of privacy.
Who is responsible for the processing will depend on who determines its purposes and means. An employer may be a controller where recording takes place for its purposes or under its authority, but an employee who makes a recording on their own initiative may themselves have responsibility for the processing.
For employers monitoring staff, consent will rarely be an appropriate lawful basis given the imbalance of power in the employment relationship. Employers must instead identify the lawful basis appropriate to the particular purpose and, where relying on legitimate interests, assess and document necessity and the balance between their interests and workers’ rights.
Privacy considerations are also relevant. Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights protects respect for private life and may be relevant to workplace recording disputes, particularly where an employee had a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Certain infringements can attract fines of up to £17.5 million or 4 per cent of global annual turnover, whichever is higher, alongside ICO investigations, compensation claims and reputational harm.
Covert recordings also raise an evidential question. Employment tribunals do not automatically exclude evidence simply because it was obtained covertly. In Chairman & Governors of Amwell View School v Dogherty [2007] ICR 135 (BAILII), the EAT distinguished between recordings of disciplinary proceedings attended by the employee and recordings of the panel’s private deliberations. The latter attract significantly greater protection, although admissibility will ultimately depend upon the circumstances.
Confidentiality and professional services
Beyond privacy, the devices raise the risk of unauthorised capture of confidential business information. A screen, whiteboard, prototype or client file can be recorded by someone who appears to be doing nothing more than wearing glasses, and the evidence is likely to sit on a personal device beyond the reach of routine IT monitoring.
For organisations relying on trade secret protection, which in the UK depends on having taken reasonable steps to keep information confidential, a confidentiality policy drafted before wearable cameras became mainstream may not appear as robust as it once did.
Consider a client meeting at which a member of staff is wearing smart glasses. Even if nothing is recorded, a client who asks whether any recording was made may doubt the confidentiality of everything said. A firm with no policy, no record of advice to staff and no clear answer is left trying to prove a negative.
The risk also extends beyond the initial recording, as captured information may be transmitted to cloud services, processed by third-party AI providers or stored outside the employer’s control. If personal data is involved, it raises further questions about security, retention, processor arrangements and international data transfers.
For professional services firms, the potential exposure of confidential client information makes it particularly important to understand how and where that data is processed.
What policies need to say
Employment contracts and handbooks should name recording devices, including smart glasses, rather than relying on references to phones and cameras, making it clear that unauthorised or covert recording may constitute misconduct and, depending on the circumstances and the employer’s rules, may amount to gross misconduct.
An employer may legitimately prohibit unauthorised recording and treat a breach as misconduct. However, the circumstances and purpose of a recording should still be considered before disciplinary action is taken. A recording made, for example, to preserve evidence of alleged discrimination, harassment, whistleblowing or a serious safety concern may require a more nuanced assessment than recording for an improper purpose.
BYOD policies need to cover wearable technology specifically, with written authorisation required where use is permitted at all, whilst accepting that compliance is hard to verify and some devices cannot be set to disable recording selectively.
For businesses handling highly confidential information, a carefully drafted prohibition in defined areas, with narrow exceptions, is likely to be the most defensible approach, subject to proportionality.
Employers must also weigh their duties under the Equality Act 2010, as wearable technology may in some cases form part of a reasonable adjustment for an employee with disabilities, so it is important restrictions are made on a case-by-case basis, rather than uniform application.
Managers and HR teams need to be made aware too. They should assume that covert recordings may surface in any workplace dispute and conduct meetings accordingly. Finally, someone should own the policy and maintain it regularly, as the technology will keep changing and a document written once will be out of date within a year.
The time to act
Smart glasses have arrived faster than many workplace policies have adapted, but the legal obligations governing their use are already established. The challenge now for employers is ensuring existing duties around privacy, confidentiality and data security are reflected in practical rules to address technology that can record and process information almost invisibly.
The legal framework is already in place to combat the problem, but without clear policies, staff guidance and appropriate safeguards, organisations risk discovering its limitations only when something goes wrong.
Claire Scanlan is a highly experienced employment solicitor with over 20 years’ expertise advising individuals and businesses on every stage of the employment relationship. Known for her approachable style and practical guidance, she provides wide-ranging experience in disputes, redundancies, restructurings, disciplinaries and contract negotiations.
Buckles Law is a nationally recognised law firm, headquartered in Peterborough, with offices in Bristol, Cambridge, London, Nottingham and Stamford. It offers a full range of legal services, including corporate law, commercial law, litigation and dispute resolution, employment law, commercial property law, family law, contentious probate and private client matters.
Photo CC0 from PxHere.
The post Smart glasses at work: why policy has to move before the first dispute appeared first on Internet for Lawyers Newsletter.