Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s Court Appearance Sparks Privacy Concerns
When Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg arrived at a Los Angeles courthouse on Wednesday, his appearance was notable not just for its high-profile nature but also for the technology he brought along. A team accompanying him appeared to be wearing Meta’s camera-equipped Ray-Ban smart glasses. This sparked immediate concerns from Judge Carolyn Kuhl, who explicitly warned anyone using the glasses to “delete that, or you will be held in contempt of the court.” Judge Kuhl also mandated the removal of AI smart glasses within the courtroom.
Even after the warning, reports indicated that at least one individual was seen wearing the glasses near jurors in a courthouse hallway. However, plaintiff attorney Rachel Lanier later reassured that the glasses were not recording at that time. This incident stands as a crucial reflection of a growing surveillance issue that is ever-present as smart glasses gain popularity.
Privacy and Surveillance: A Growing Concern
The introduction of glasses equipped with recording capabilities has ignited concerns around privacy, surveillance, and doxxing in various settings, including courthouses. Earlier this month, a user on the r/legaladvice subreddit requested guidance on reporting the use of smart glasses by a plaintiff in court. Additionally, in response to growing worries, some states are moving to restrict smart glasses’ usage in courthouses. Notably, both the US District Courts for the District of Hawaii and the Western District of Wisconsin have recently enacted bans, alongside Forsyth County Court in North Carolina, which prohibited their use last year. Colorado’s District Court is also contemplating a similar ban.
Historical Context of Recording Restrictions in Courtrooms
The movement to control recording devices in courtrooms is not a recent phenomenon. A historical overview reveals that since 1946, the Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 53 has banned the recording or broadcasting of criminal proceedings in federal courts. In 1972, the Judicial Conference of the United States expanded this ban to include recording and broadcasting across all courtroom types, both civil and criminal. An exception was made during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, permitting teleconferencing, but this exception concluded in 2023.
On a state level, laws forbidding camera use in courtrooms often vary, with many states allowing recordings under specific restrictions, such as requiring a judge’s approval or only permitting certain individuals, like media members, to record.
Reasons Behind Recording Bans
Several reasons justify the prohibition of recording devices in courtrooms. The presence of cameras can intimidate witnesses or jurors and alter their behavior or speech. Privacy issues also loom large, particularly in cases involving minors, who generally retain anonymity in court records. The covert recording potential of smart glasses, like those developed by Meta, raises additional concerns about risking the privacy of all parties involved in court proceedings.
Darío Maestro, a legal director at the Surveillance Technology Oversight Project (STOP), emphasized that smart glasses should not escape scrutiny. “Courts have long restricted recording devices for good reason — to protect witnesses, jurors, and the integrity of proceedings,” he noted. “No judge would allow someone to sit in the gallery pointing a smartphone at the witness stand, even with the camera app closed.”
Challenges in Enforcement and Future Implications
However, while conventional recording devices like phones can be easily put away, smart glasses may present unique challenges, particularly for individuals who rely on them for vision correction. As these glasses become more commonplace—Meta reported selling 7 million pairs in 2025, with competitors like Apple anticipated to release their own in the coming years—the enforcement of courtroom regulations may encounter difficulties.
The glasses typically feature an LED indicator to signal when they are recording; however, this function can be disabled without notice, making detection challenging. Furthermore, recent reports indicate plans by Meta to enhance these devices with facial recognition technology, potentially making them even more invasive.
Judge Kuhl has made it abundantly clear that recording with smart glasses in her courtroom is unacceptable. While full bans on smart glasses in U.S. courts remain relatively rare, individual judges like Kuhl are taking strong measures to safeguard the integrity of legal proceedings.
Alan Butler, executive director and president of the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), remarked, “The fact that Meta’s legal team appears to have come to this hearing… equipped with invasive glasses that put jurors and others in the courtroom at risk is a bit on the nose. But the Judge’s response was refreshing and shows that such behavior need not be tolerated.”
For a deeper look into this developing story, check out the original article Here.
Image Credit: www.theverge.com
