Smart Glasses and Your Business – Part 2

Your next visitor may be wearing a camera

In Part 1, we looked at the privacy issues created by smart glasses. This article looks at the risks for your business. What happens when someone walks through your door wearing glasses that can see, hear, record, store and transmit what is around them, often to an artificial intelligence service overseas? What can you do about it? Recent events in the UK and Australia show why this is worth thinking about now rather than after something goes wrong.

Case study 1: Recording films, performances and artwork

In August 2026, UK media reported that cinema operators were considering restrictions on camera-enabled smart glasses because of concerns about film piracy. The concern is easy to understand. When someone records on a phone, staff can usually see it. With smart glasses, the person simply appears to be watching.

In Australia, recording a film in a cinema would generally reproduce the film and infringe copyright under the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth). Recording a live performance, such as a play, concert or dance performance, without the performers’ consent can also breach the protections for performers in Part XIA of that Act.

Galleries and museums are more nuanced. Photographing a painting or drawing may reproduce it. However, sculptures and works of artistic craftsmanship that are permanently displayed in premises open to the public can generally be photographed and filmed without infringing copyright. Asking AI glasses to describe an artwork or a product’s features is not in itself a copyright infringement. The legal issue is the image or recording that is made, and where it ends up.

For your business, the most practical protection is often your conditions of entry rather than copyright law. A person on your premises is there with your permission. You can make it a condition of entry that recording devices, including smart glasses, are removed or switched off, and you can ask anyone who refuses to leave. That only works if your conditions actually mention wearable devices and are brought to visitors’ attention, for example when tickets are sold, at reception and on signage. A “No Photography” sign written with cameras and phones in mind may no longer be enough.

Case study 2: Your confidential information

For most businesses, this is the bigger risk. In September 2026, ABC News reported on security testing of two budget smart glasses sold in Australia, one through Temu and one through Big W. The researchers found that someone within Bluetooth range could connect to the glasses without a password, take new photos and recordings, and access content already stored on them. They also found that images and questions sent to the glasses’ AI assistant were routed to servers in China, without users being clearly told.

Now imagine those glasses are in your office, showroom or factory. They might capture a confidential document on a desk, a prototype or unreleased design, a computer screen, source code, a customer list, a whiteboard from a strategy meeting, financial information, a manufacturing process, or a conversation in a meeting. The wearer may not have meant to take anything. The information can be captured, stored or transmitted simply because of how the device works. It may then be accessible to the wearer, to someone nearby, or to an overseas AI provider.

The law does protect confidential information, but the protection depends on the circumstances. An action for breach of confidence generally requires that the person knew, or ought to have known, that the information was confidential. A visitor who signed nothing and was never told may argue that no obligation arose. This is why your NDAs, visitor terms and signage should expressly deal with recording devices. They make it much harder for anyone to say they didn’t know.

Unreleased inventions and designs need particular care. Australia provides a 12-month grace period for patents and designs for certain disclosures, which in some cases can include disclosures made without the owner’s consent. Many overseas countries do not have the same grace period. So if you plan to protect a product outside Australia, an early leak can still cause real damage.

Case study 3: Where does the information go?

Reuters reported in September 2026 on growing legal and regulatory scrutiny of AI-enabled smart glasses and other wearable devices, including concerns about recordings flowing into broader data-processing systems. For businesses, the issue goes beyond privacy. Suppose an employee looks at a confidential document and asks their glasses to summarise it. Or a visitor looks at a prototype and asks what it is, or someone asks the glasses to explain the code on a screen. To answer, the device may need to capture an image and send it to an AI provider.

Before allowing these devices into sensitive areas, you should understand a few things. Is an image created and uploaded? How long is it kept, and which company receives it? Is it processed overseas? Could it be reviewed by people or used to train AI models? The answers vary between devices and settings, and many wearers will not know them.

The biggest risk is often your own staff. An employee who uses AI glasses while working with client information may put your business in breach of its confidentiality obligations to your clients. If your business is covered by the Privacy Act, it may also be disclosing personal information, including sending it overseas, which is regulated by Australian Privacy Principle 8.

What does the law say in Australia?

There is no single “smart glasses law” in Australia. Instead, several laws may apply, depending on the situation.

The Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) and the Australian Privacy Principles regulate how organisations collect, use, disclose and secure personal information. However, they generally do not apply to small businesses with an annual turnover of $3 million or less, although there are exceptions, such as businesses that provide health services. Nor do they apply to individuals acting in a personal capacity, so a customer recording in your shop will usually fall outside them.

Since June 2025, individuals have also been able to sue for serious invasions of privacy under the statutory tort in Schedule 2 to the Privacy Act.

State and territory surveillance laws regulate the recording of private conversations and activities, and the rules differ across Australia. For example, in Victoria a party to a private conversation can generally record it, while in New South Wales the consent of all parties is generally required, subject to exceptions.

Other laws may also be relevant:

• copyright and performers’ rights under the Copyright Act;
• contracts, employment obligations and breach of confidence, which protect confidential information;
• patent and designs law, where an unreleased invention or design is exposed;
• disability discrimination law, when you set any restrictions.

The legal position will depend on what was recorded, where, by whom, whether consent was given, what happened to the information afterwards, and which state or territory you are in.

Should you simply ban smart glasses?

Not necessarily. Smart glasses have legitimate uses, including as accessibility aids for people who are blind or have low vision. In September 2026, the City of Sydney approved a motion to ban smart glasses from its leisure centres, libraries, childcare centres and community centres, with an exemption for people with disability who use them as an accessibility device. A blanket ban without that kind of exemption may risk indirect discrimination under the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) and state anti-discrimination laws.

A more practical approach is to set rules by area. Smart glasses might be fine in reception but not in meeting rooms, laboratories, factory floors or design studios. They should never be permitted in changing rooms or toilets. You can also require visitors to tell you if their glasses can record, and set clear rules on whether staff may use AI glasses when working with confidential or client information.

What should your business do now?

Start by working out where your risks actually are. Identify the parts of your premises and business where recording would cause real harm, such as meeting rooms, production areas, screens with client data, or performances and exhibitions. Then check whether your existing documents deal with wearable devices:

• conditions of entry;
• visitor sign-in terms;
• NDAs;
• employment and contractor agreements;
• workplace policies;
• privacy policy;
• signage.

Many were written before smart glasses existed and say nothing about them. Update them so that the rules are clear, they allow for legitimate accessibility needs, and they are brought to people’s attention before they walk in. Finally, make sure your staff know what the policy is and what to do if someone refuses to follow it.

The disappearing camera

For years, businesses could rely on something simple: you could usually see the camera. Smart glasses change that. This is not just a futuristic privacy issue. It is an intellectual property, confidentiality, cybersecurity, employment and contract issue as well. The technology is new, but the questions are familiar: who can see our information, who can copy it, where can it go, and what have we done to protect it? They are worth answering before smart glasses become as ordinary as smartphones.

If you would like help reviewing your conditions of entry, NDAs, employment agreements or workplace policies for smart glasses and other wearable devices, please contact us.

---

Please note the above article is general in nature and does not constitute legal advice.

Please email us info@iplegal.com.au if you need legal advice about your brand or another legal matter in this area generally.