Meta Faces Lawsuit Over Ray-Ban Smart Glasses Privacy

Hey, it's Bubba Wallace from 2311 Racing.

You know what it feels like forever?

Sitting on a plane waiting for takeoff.

Good thing I've got Jamba Casino.

With daily boost in social casino games on tap,

this is a kind of fun that makes time fly.

Why not turbocharged your downtime?

Play now at JambaCasino.com.

Let's Jamba.

Sponsored by Jamba Casino, no purchase necessary.

VGW GroupFord, where prohibited by law,

21 plots, terms and conditions apply.

This podcast is supported by Talkspace.

When my husband came home from his military deployment,

regesting was hard for all of us.

Thankfully, I found Talkspace.

Talkspace provides professional support

from licensed therapists and psychiatric providers online.

Military members, veterans and their dependents,

ages 13 and older, can get fast access to providers,

all from the privacy of their computers or smartphones.

I just answered a few questions online

and Talkspace matched me with a therapist.

We meet when it's convenient for me,

and I can message her anytime.

It was so easy to set up, and they accept try care.

Therapy was going so well,

my husband and I started seeing a couple's therapist

through Talkspace too.

Talkspace works with most major insurers, including try care.

Match with a licensed therapist today at Talkspace.com slash military.

Go to Talkspace.com slash military to get started today.

That's Talkspace.com slash military.

Meta has got itself in some hot water.

Once again, there's a new class action lawsuit.

Essentially, people are suing it because of its AI-powered smartglasses,

the Meta Ray bands.

You know, I mean, we literally just had a Super Bowl commercial

about these.

And essentially, what's been happening is that there are human contractors

overseas that review the footage apparently,

and the class action lawsuit is that most users wearing these

don't know that there's other people overseas reviewing the video,

especially because it's been kind of marketed as, you know,

you have like content security,

and there's been a whole bunch of sensitive footage,

including people going to the bathroom or having sex or appearing new.

There's all sorts of things that have apparently been reviewed

by people over in Kenya.

There's kind of an investigative company over in Sweden,

a newspaper called Spenceka Doubleaget,

who basically worked with some of the Kenyan-based subcontractors

that were hired by Meta and asked them about, you know,

what types of video clips they were reviewing that came

from these Meta Ray bands.

So anyways, today on the podcast, we're getting into this huge

controversy for Meta, what this means for the future,

who else is in this space, what we can expect to see in the future.

Before we get into that, I wanted to mention,

if you want to try any of the AI models I talk about on the show,

I'd love for you to try out my own platform,

which is AIbox.ai.

Basically, good access to over 40 of the top AI models

for $8.99 a month.

It's way cheaper than Chad's GPT's $20 a month,

and you get access to Chad's GPT, Grock,

and Theroppyx Quad, Google Gemini.

You get 11 labs for audio, tons of cool image models.

There's a whole bunch of stuff on there.

There are over 40 different models of all the top different companies,

and it's $8.99 a month.

And you get 20% off of your getting annual plans.

So it's a great value. Go check it out.

You also can use AI to automatically build tools for you,

just by describing them,

even if you're not a developer, like myself.

Okay, let's get into what's going on with Meta.

So when the controversy first kind of broke,

and everyone was like, oh my gosh,

why are people reviewing my Meta-ray ban videos?

Like, if I'm going to the bathroom or something,

and there's a video, I mean, first of all,

I don't really know why someone be recording themselves

going to the bathroom, but if they wanted to,

I guess that's up to them.

But beyond that, I think maybe people are concerned

because these things have cameras on,

that the cameras are viewable,

even while there's not footage being recorded now.

So I think just a lot of trust has been lost in the device

for a lot of different things.

So when the controversy first kind of came out,

Meta said like, look, we have tools in place

that blur the faces of people in this, quote unquote,

reviewed footage to kind of protect their privacy.

But a bunch of sources that were actually working on this

said that all those types of like face blurring safeguards

don't actually always work.

So like, yeah, sometimes the face is blurred,

but sometimes it's not.

And because of this, the UK's information commission office

actually started looking into all of this.

And I think now this is kind of escalated to the US.

There's a newly filed federal lawsuit,

which is accusing Meta of misleading consumers

about the privacy protections of their AI glasses.

I think that's kind of the biggest thing, right?

Like, if you want to strap a camera to yourself

about all your daily tasks, you might expect, you know,

that there could be issues with the footage may be leaked

or something, although honestly,

I feel like just no one would ever expect this,

although the pessimistic side of me thinks

that this could happen.

I think you probably, you know,

there's like the conspiracy theory that Apple's iPhones

are always listening to and the cameras are always on,

and you see all the laptops are you kind of covered

the laptop camera.

There's all those like laptop camera cover things

so people don't hack into it.

Like, so there is like that kind of concern

if you have a camera that could be hacked or viewed

or leaked or et cetera, et cetera.

But to be actually like explicitly coming happening

from the company and in a way that's systematic

and they're like, yeah, this is just,

this just happens.

I think really catches a lot of people off guard.

And so beyond just catching people off guard, though,

the lawsuit is accusing them of basically

met up misleading customers

about the privacy protection of the glasses.

So the complaint was brought by two different plaintiffs,

Gina Bartone from New Jersey, Mateo Canoe of California.

And it was filed by the public interest law firm,

Clarkson Law Firm.

So according to this whole lawsuit,

Meta said that the glasses have like a marking on them.

They, you know, they say when you go by them,

there's things like designed for privacy

and, you know, controlled by you

and built for your privacy.

Like, this is all the slogans that Meta has all

over these glasses.

In the lawsuit, they're arguing that those claims

are giving customers the impression

that the footage captured by the glasses

is going to remain private and under their control,

which is what I would assume,

rather than, you know, being sent overseas

to have contractors review it for,

quote unquote, quality like, man, that's the worst.

So this lawsuit is now saying that neither

of the plaintiffs saw any clear disclosures

indicating the footage from the glasses

could be reviewed by human workers

as part of Meta's AI training process.

They also say that they would not have purchased the product

if they had known about the company's review pipeline.

So, if, you know, if I'm going to go by these glasses,

I would like at least some sort of disclosures saying,

by the way, if you film stuff on this,

like, people are going to be watching your videos

for quality assurance.

Okay, well, I would like to opt out of all quality assurance

and I want anyone watching my personal videos.

Like, can you imagine if every video you've recorded

on your iPhone and maybe this is the case

and I'm just unaware, but is sent overseas

to be reviewed by someone

would feel like a major invasion of your privacy.

Clarkson Law firm also highlighted this

basically kind of what's going on here.

In 2025 alone, more than seven million people

bought the Meta Smart Glasses,

which like is a product.

I've been pretty excited about pretty bullish on it

in regards to kind of AI.

It's a cool product.

I think it's kind of trendy.

According to this lawsuit, though,

footage captured by the devices can be routed

into a data pipeline used to train Meta's AI systems

and users are not able to opt out of this process

when using certain features.

So, Meta was talking to BBC about this

because yeah, like, I'm sure Meta's mind is like,

dude, this is kind of the ultimate gold mine, right?

Like, we can capture so much data through the glasses,

through the voice.

We could use this to train our AI model,

make it better and better.

So, I think this is kind of Meta's,

this is kind of Meta's incentive here

and even when it comes to like people overseas reviewing

the footage, what's probably happening

is the footage that's being filmed

is just like included in their AI data training set

and those people overseas are doing, you know,

like data labeling for training AI models.

But, you know, all of a sudden, the data labeling

has everyone's personal videos in it

and that's, I think, where it's a major invasion of privacy.

I mean, honestly, the whole using the data to train AI models

I would say is an invasion of privacy

and we wonder why some of these AI models get so good

and where they get their data from.

And it's just half the time sneaky ways

that you don't know companies are stealing your data.

But, you know, that's another conversation.

In any case, talking to the BBC about all of this,

they did acknowledge that when a user

is sharing content with Meta AI,

the company is going to use contractors

to review that data in order to improve the system.

They said that this practice is,

they're like, look, we disclose it in our policies

like that giant terms of service

and privacy policy somewhere.

It's in their supplemental terms of service.

So, not even in their main one

in the supplemental terms of service.

But, there are some reporters that noted that references

to human review were very hard to find

and were more clearly spelled out in Meta's UK AI terms

and not so clear in the US disclosure,

which is interesting.

So, if you're over in the UK

and you read the terms,

you might actually understand that's happening in the US.

It was not very clear.

So, one version of the policy said

that Meta might review interactions

with its AI systems,

including the content of conversations and messages

and that such reviews, quote,

maybe automated or manual human.

So, the lawsuit is basically kind of focusing

on how the glasses were marketed.

I think it's talking a lot about the promotional materials,

maybe not so much about the terms of service.

Because I think basically every company, right,

and the terms of service,

these things are like 5,000 page documents.

They could put anything in there that they want.

No one's ever going to read them.

But, when you do the marketing materials,

I mean, if there's only so many slogans

that they're throwing around,

they're very prominent on their website.

This is what everyone sees.

And so, I do think that this lawsuit will...

I think it's...

I have potential to win,

but I have a good point here.

Because of all the promotional material,

kind of emphasizing the privacy controls

and telling us that we had control of our data and content.

So, there's a lot of critics right now that are arguing

that this is a lot more complicated than it seems.

They're saying, you know,

some features of the glasses,

like the multimodal AI capabilities

that kind of look at your surroundings in real time.

Those require sending the captured images to Meta systems.

And in those cases, images like that

are going to be processed by an AI.

They're not stored on the user's device, right?

Because if you're looking around

and you're like, hey, I'm looking for like the coffee shop

that's supposed to be on the street, like,

do you see it?

And then, AI's scanning your video feed-ins,

like, oh, it's, you know, over to your right.

Go that way.

Like, the glasses can do cool things like that.

But, yeah, you obviously do have to send it to AI.

So, that is kind of a no-brainer.

But I think that then taking that data

and using it for training and improving the model

and having humans kind of in the loop of that

is a whole nother thing.

I think, like, I wouldn't really like my private pictures

and videos and images on my phone

sent to an AI model to be trained.

But still, that's better than, in my opinion,

like, sending it to a human to go review

and look through every single picture on your camera.

I don't think anyone really wants that.

Meta did not comment directly on the lawsuit yet

in any sort of public way.

They did have a statement

where their spokesperson, Christopher Sergo,

said that the glasses are designed to allow users

to interact with AI hands-free

and that captured media remains that the users

on the user's device, unless it's intentionally shared

with Meta or others.

It's like, look, if you sent us pictures

of yourself going to the bathroom,

this because you intentionally shared them with us

and you wanted to.

They said, quote, when people share content with Meta AI,

we sometimes use contractors to review this data

for the purpose of improving people's experience

as many other companies do.

And then they also said that Meta filters data

to protect privacy and reduces the likelihood

of identifying information.

So people don't know.

It's you that they're looking at.

In any case, right?

I think at the end of the day,

it's kind of highlighting this concern

that we call luxury surveillance devices,

basically smart glasses,

and other of these kind of like always-on AI devices.

They're becoming more and more.

A lot of critics are saying that this tech is bringing

a bunch of new questions about consent,

bystander privacy.

I think for now, the lawsuit is just seeking monetary damages

and the court order is going to require changes

to Meta's disclosure and all of their marketing,

which if I'm being honest,

I think that this is very fair.

If Meta is saying, look,

all of this is you have like tons of privacy

and you get control over your data.

I think you definitely do not want your data

being sent and viewed by other people.

So they can change their marketing

and they can change their disclosures.

I don't think the product's going to change

and the way that they do a lot of things

probably won't change.

Some people don't mind.

Some people will mind.

But I think the way that they market it

is going to have to change.

So it'll be interesting to see what happens with this lawsuit.

I'll follow it as it moves forward.

Thank you so much for tuning into the podcast today.

If you enjoyed the episode,

make sure to leave a rating review

wherever you get your shows.

And if you want to try out all of the latest AI models

in one place for less than $20 a month,

only $8.99.

Go check out AIbox.ai.

I'll leave a link to it in the description.

Have a great rest of your day.

Bubba Wallace here from 2311 Racing.

You know what's slower than a pace car?

Waiting at the car wash.

That's when I fire up Chamba Casino.

It turns those slow minutes into fast fun.

With new games every week, you'll never get bored.

Next time you're stuck in the slow lane,

speed up with Chamba.

Play now at ChambaCasino.com.

Let's Chamba.

Sponsored by Chamba Casino.

No purchase necessary.

VGW GroupFord,

where prohibited by law,

21 plus terms and conditions apply.