German non-profit group HateAid has filed a criminal complaint against Meta, Ray-Ban, Oakley and several eyewear retailers with Germany's Central Office for Combating Internet Crime, seeking a ban on the sale of Meta's AI glasses, the Ray-Ban Meta Wayfarer. The complaint lands where so many of these fights end up: in a state office, asking the state to draw a line around a surveillance product that already sits on the market. The group says the glasses violate Germany's Telecommunications, Digital Services and Data Protection Act.
A Surveillance Device in Plain Sight
HateAid says the Ray-Ban Meta AI glasses are "indistinguishable" from ordinary glasses, and that matters because 41 million people wear glasses in Germany alone. That, the group argues, can create "image-based digital violence" and "disguise a particularly inconspicuous surveillance technology as an everyday object". The language is blunt for a reason. The product isn't being sold as a police tool or a spy gadget. It's being sold as eyewear. Ordinary life, with a camera tucked into it.
The group's petition calls first for a complete ban on the sale of Ray-Ban Meta AI glasses in Germany, which could in theory follow a legal assessment of their compliance with German law. The second request is to ensure safety by design, making sure the glasses are "clearly identifiable". HateAid suggests colour-coding the cameras. The glasses already have a built-in white LED light that blinks continuously while a user is taking a photo or filming. Even that tiny signal, the group says, isn't enough to stop the device from blending into daily life.
The third request is not to leave those affected to fend for themselves. That points, in the group's own framing, to deeper problems with law enforcement and with protecting one's rights, whether offline or online. The complaint doesn't just target a product. It points at the familiar state routine: regulate the harm after the market has already pushed it into circulation, then tell people to trust the system that failed to stop it in the first place.
Europe's Patchwork, Europe's Problem
German public photography laws are stricter than those of many other EU countries. Taking pictures and videos of panoramic views and public events is allowed, but photographing or filming individual people without prior consent is not. Many other European countries, by contrast, permit public photography and filming of passers-by, as long as the content is not used for malicious, commercial or vigilante purposes. So the continent gets its usual arrangement: different national rules, different thresholds, and a fragmented legal map that leaves basic questions of consent to be sorted out country by country.
The EU has long faced criticism over its fragmented approach to implementing its data protection laws, and public photography and filming looks set to become another point of contention. That’s the Brussels model in miniature. Big talk about rights, a patchwork in practice, and the burden of navigating it pushed onto ordinary people while corporations keep shipping the hardware.
Women Carry the Risk, Platforms Carry On
HateAid argues smart glasses should be banned outright, pointing to rising digital violence, which often targets women. Instances of physical and psychological violence against women in Europe are indeed on the rise, and AI and deepfakes bring new layers of privacy and security threats. In 2024, Germany, France and Sweden reported the sharpest rise in recorded sexual violence and rape offences. The numbers are not abstract. They sit behind every claim that a device can be made harmless by a blinking light and a compliance note.
The broader picture is grim. 30% of women in Germany say they have experienced psychological violence from a partner, 32% report sexual harassment at work, and 14% report stalking. Few women report online abuse or know their rights, either. According to a 2025 report from the Economist Intelligence Unit, only one in four women report online abuse, just 14% report it to law enforcement, and 78% are unaware of the options available to fight back against online harassment, doxing and impersonation.
That last figure says plenty about the gap between rights on paper and protection in practice. The market keeps inventing new ways to watch, copy and harass. The state keeps offering complaint forms, legal categories and fragmented rules. Between the two, people are left to deal with the damage.