German digital-rights organisation HateAid filed a criminal complaint on 12 August over Meta's AI smart glasses — and did not stop at the manufacturer.
Who is named
The complaint targets the management of Meta Platforms Technologies Ireland, the Ray-Ban and Oakley eyewear brands, and four retailers: Fielmann, Apollo-Optik, Mister Spex and MediaMarkt. Naming the shops is the aggressive part — it turns a dispute about a product into a question about whether selling it is lawful.
The legal theory
HateAid relies on Germany's Telecommunications-Digital Services Data Protection Act (TDDDG), which prohibits manufacturing and selling communication devices disguised as everyday objects that can record images or private conversations without consent. Responsible managers face up to two years' imprisonment or a fine. The device at issue is the Ray-Ban Meta Wayfarer Gen 2.
The supporting facts cited
HateAid points to aftermarket accessories that mask the recording LED, dormant facial-recognition code found in and later removed from the companion app, and contractor review of user footage. Meta's response: the glasses are "built with privacy safeguards from the ground up that go beyond what any smartphone offers."
What has not happened
This is a complaint by an NGO, not a charge. German prosecutors must decide whether to open proceedings, and no court has ruled on anything. A complaint of this kind can end without any action being taken.
Why the framing is unusual
Most privacy actions against wearables run through data-protection law and end in fines. Routing this through a criminal statute about disguised recording devices shifts the question from how data is handled to whether a camera that looks like eyewear may be sold at all — a far harder problem for the product to engineer around.