Smart glasses, fitness trackers, smartwatches, body cams, and location-based wearables have moved quickly from novelty to mainstream tools, both in consumer life and in the workplace. For employers, these technologies hold the promise of productivity, safety, and efficiency gains. They also create a rapidly fast-expanding set of privacy, surveillance, and compliance risks that are still poorly understood.

A recently filed class action in Bartone et al. v. Meta Platforms, Inc., et al. puts those risks into especially sharp relief. Although the lawsuit arises in the consumer context, the allegations—if proven—raise issues that resonate directly with employers navigating wearable technology in the workplace, employee-recording laws, and informed consent standards. For in-house counsel and HR leaders, the case offers a cautionary tale about what happens when sophisticated data collection outpaces transparency, governance, and user understanding.

The Lawsuit in Brief: What Meta Is Accused of Doing

The plaintiffs in Bartone are purchasers and users of Meta’s AI-enabled smart glasses (sold under Ray-Ban and Oakley branding). They allege that Meta and its co-manufacturer marketed the glasses as “designed for privacy” and “controlled by you,” while failing to disclose how data collected by the device was actually processed and used. According to the amended complaint:

• The glasses continuously collect audio, visual, and contextual data when AI features are used.
• That data is transmitted off the device to Meta’s servers.
• Portions of the recordings, allegedly including footage captured in homes and other private spaces are reviewed and labeled by human contractors overseas as part of Meta’s AI-training pipeline.
• Consumers were not clearly told that human review, offshore access, and AI training were integral to how the product functioned.
• The plaintiffs claim they paid a price premium based on privacy assurances that were misleading or incomplete.

The lawsuit advances a broad range of claims: deceptive marketing, invasion of privacy, failure to warn, unjust enrichment, and strict product liability theories—many focused on the idea that privacy risks were not incidental but baked into the core design of the technology. The case is still in its early stages. But the factual allegations alone underscore themes familiar to any employer dealing with workplace monitoring tools.

Why Employers Should Care—Even If They Don’t Issue Smart Glasses

Many employers won’t issue AI glasses to employees. But the Bartone allegations matter in a workplace context because they highlight systemic risks that arise whenever wearable technology captures personal, biometric, audio, or visual data, particularly when:

• Data collection is persistent or ambient rather than episodic
• Information is processed by third parties
• Individuals interacting with the wearer (coworkers, customers, patients) are unaware of the data flow

These risks already exist in common workplace scenarios:

• Safety wearables that track fatigue, heart rate, or location
• Smartwatches that record audio or enable dictation
• Body cameras or glasses worn by security, healthcare, or field personnel
• Personal phones or wearables employees bring into meetings

The technology differs, but the legal and cultural concerns are strikingly similar.

Consent Is Not a Check-the-Box Exercise

One recurring theme in the Bartone complaint is “expectation mismatch” i.e., users believed that the technology operated locally and privately, while the alleged reality involved remote storage and human review. Employers see similar problems when they rely on thin or outdated consent models in the workplace.

As discussed in my previous blog on employee recordings under Virginia’s one-party consent law, something can be legally permissible but still create serious risks for employers. An employee may lawfully record a conversation without notice in a one-party consent state, but that does not mean the employer is protected from:

• Privacy complaints
• NLRA challenges to overly broad privacy policies
• Reputational harm
• Loss of trust among workers

The same logic applies to wearables. Even when employees voluntarily “agree” to use wearable devices while on the job, meaningful consent still depends on:

• Understanding what data is collected
• Knowing where it goes
• Who can see it
• How long it is retained
• What secondary uses exist (including AI training)

The Bartone lawsuit alleges that users did not have that understanding. Employers should assume regulators, courts, and juries will increasingly ask the same questions in workplace cases.

Wearables Blur the Line Between Monitoring and Surveillance

As outlined in the Wearable Technologies in the Workplace blog, wearables often collect information that potentially implicates federal employment laws, like the ADA, Pregnancy Discrimination Act, and Title VII:

• Medical data
• Biometric identifiers
• Location history
• Behavioral patterns

Smart glasses go even further, capturing the surrounding environment, including people who never consented and may not even be aware they were recorded.

This raises a critical issue for employers: bystander privacy.

Just as with employee smartphone recordings, the potential risk to employers is not limited to the person wearing the device. Coworkers, customers, patients, and vendors may all be swept into data collection inadvertently creating possible exposure under:

• State privacy and wiretapping laws
• Common-law intrusion theories
• Sector-specific confidentiality rules (healthcare, law, finance, education)
• International data-transfer regimes

The Bartone plaintiffs emphasize that bystanders could be recorded in private moments without knowledge or consent. That argument is unlikely to remain confined to consumer litigation.

Third-Party Vendors Are a Major Risk Multiplier

One of the most striking allegations in Bartone is not merely that data was collected, but who allegedly accessed it: offshore contractors tasked with reviewing and labeling videos.

For employers, this reinforces a lesson already well learned in data-breach cases: vendors are often the weakest link.

Any workplace wearable program should prompt employers to ask hard questions:

• Are vendors using collected data for their own model training?
• Are human reviewers involved?
• Where are they located?
• What access controls exist?
• What contractual audit rights does the employer have?

As with employee recordings, the legal exposure may flow not only from what the employer intended, but from what its technology ecosystem actually permits.

What In-House Counsel and HR Leaders Should Be Doing Now

Even if your organization does not currently deploy wearable technology, the trajectory is clear. Practical steps include:

1. Inventory Technology Use
Identify what wearable, recording, or monitoring tools are in use—issued or employee-owned.

2. Revisit Consent and Notice
Ensure policies describe how data is processed, not just that it is collected.

3. Coordinate Employment and Privacy Compliance
ADA, NLRA, state recording laws, and data-privacy statutes increasingly intersect.

4. Train Managers and HR
Assume conversations, environments, and actions may be recorded—lawfully or not.

5. Scrutinize Vendor Agreements
Pay particular attention to secondary data use, human review, and AI training clauses.

Final Thoughts

The Bartone v. Meta lawsuit is not just about smart glasses. It is about the growing gap between what technology does and what people think it does, a gap that creates legal, cultural, and potential reputational risks. For employers, wearable technology sits at the intersection of productivity, privacy, and trust. As this litigation shows, when transparency falls short, the consequences can be significant, long before any court reaches the merits. The safest course for employers is not to avoid innovation, but to slow down governance to match the speed of technology.

Bean, Kinney & Korman’s employment law practice group works proactively with employers of all sizes, in Virginia, Maryland, and the District of Columbia, to craft a full range of employment policies and documents to meet the compliance challenges of all applicable federal, state, and local laws. If you have questions about your business employment policies or practices, or need assistance with your company’s workforce forms, please contact Doug Taylor at (703) 526-5586 or rdougtaylor@beankinney.com or your current Bean, Kinney & Korman attorney.

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. If you have questions about workplace surveillance, wearables, employee recordings, or data-governance issues, consult experienced employment and data-privacy counsel.