Meta’s smart glasses are a hit. They also have a privacy problem 👓

Click here to read in English

Thirteen years ago, a single pair of smart glasses was enough to spook an entire industry. Google Glass, backed by one of the most powerful companies on the planet, ran headlong into public mistrust: fear of being secretly filmed, the mocking nickname « Glasshole, » and outright bans in bars, restaurants, and casinos across the US. The product was buried almost before it had a chance to live.

Thirteen years later, the story appears to be playing out differently. Ray-Ban Meta smart glasses, made by EssilorLuxottica and powered by Meta’s AI, now sit on millions of faces, from Paris to Lagos to Yaoundé. The commercial success is undeniable. But underneath the tinted lenses, an uncomfortable question is resurfacing: what do these glasses actually see, and who is on the other side of the lens?

How Meta succeeded where Google failed 🕶️

The numbers speak for themselves. EssilorLuxottica reports selling over 7 million AI glasses (Ray-Ban Meta and Oakley Meta combined) in 2025, up from roughly 2 million combined across the two previous years. The recipe behind that success comes down to three ingredients: a Wayfarer frame that looks like nothing more than a classic pair of Ray-Bans, a price point kept just under the psychological $400 threshold, and a voice-activated AI assistant that requires no screen or gesture to learn.

Where Google Glass proudly wore its futuristic status on its sleeve, Meta made the opposite bet: blend in. The result is a product you now walk past every day without necessarily noticing it.

A camera and a microphone strapped to your face 👁️

In practical terms, these glasses pack a camera, a microphone, and an AI assistant activated with « Hey Meta. » You can snap a photo, record video, or ask the AI a question about whatever’s in front of you, all without ever pulling out your phone. That discretion is exactly what makes the product commercially compelling, and exactly what makes it a problem.

A camera hidden in a pair of glasses doesn’t just capture its wearer. It captures everyone standing across from them, a coworker, a child, a stranger on the street, without ever asking for consent.

The scandal that changed everything: private footage, unknown hands 📹

In late February 2026, two Swedish newspapers, Svenska Dagbladet and Göteborgs-Posten, published an investigation that sent shockwaves through the tech industry. Workers at Sama, a Nairobi-based outsourcing firm contracted to annotate Ray-Ban Meta footage for AI training, reportedly described to journalists what crossed their screens daily: bathroom scenes, intimate moments, situations the people involved likely never imagined a stranger would ever review.

Meta says it filters this content and automatically blurs faces before any human review takes place. But according to several worker accounts gathered by the Swedish press, those filters reportedly fail on a regular basis, particularly in low-light conditions.

Shortly after the investigation was published, Meta reportedly ended its contract with Sama, a decision said to have affected more than 1,100 jobs. The company cites failure to meet expected standards; Sama, for its part, firmly disputes that account and says it received no prior warning of any performance issues.

Regulators and courts step in ⚖️

The fallout didn’t stop there. In early March 2026, a class action lawsuit was filed in a federal court in California, accusing Meta of misleading consumers about the actual level of privacy its smart glasses offer. The plaintiffs argue, among other things, that Meta failed to make clear that human employees, not just algorithms, could review content shared with its AI.

Regulators are taking notice too. The UK’s Information Commissioner’s Office called the revelations concerning and said it intends to seek formal explanations from Meta. In Kenya, the data protection authority has opened its own investigation into how this footage is being used to train AI systems.

What this means beyond Silicon Valley 🌍

At first glance, this scandal seems to be unfolding far from Yaoundé and Douala. It isn’t.

For one, these glasses are also reaching the continent, whether through imports or online orders, and nothing suggests the protections Meta promises are any stronger for an African user than for one in the US or Europe. More strikingly, the workers caught in the middle of this scandal were themselves African, Kenyan contractors exposed daily to intimate footage belonging to strangers, often for wages far below what equivalent roles pay in the West. Africa isn’t just watching this story unfold from the sidelines; it’s an essential, if unwilling, part of the machinery behind it.

Finally, this scandal is a reminder of something simple, and true everywhere: wearing a camera-equipped device is never a neutral act, not for the wearer, and not for the people around them.

The real price of convenience 🔮

Ray-Ban Meta’s success proves one thing: when technology becomes discreet and convenient enough, people adopt it, even without fully grasping the implications. That’s exactly what makes this scandal so telling. The threat here doesn’t come from a hack or an isolated technical flaw. It’s built into how the product itself works, designed to turn every ordinary moment into exploitable data.

As these devices become mainstream, vigilance can no longer be optional; it needs to become a reflex: knowing what you’re sharing, with whom, and for what purpose. Trust, unlike a pair of glasses, isn’t something you can simply buy back.

Would you still wear a pair, knowing this? Knowing a stranger might one day review your most private moments, would that change your answer? Tell us in the comments, the Griots are listening. 💬