Smart glasses: 'You never know when you could be recorded'

As of July 20, 2026, smart glasses — meaning eyewear or headwear containing a camera, microphone, computer or other technology that permits the user to record video or audio — are prohibited inside any New York state courthouses.

The ban is meant to ensure that individuals cannot surreptitiously record court proceedings.

While it’s a change south of the border, rules around smart glasses are bound to evolve in Canada as the technology advances, along with privacy concerns.

With AI integration making them genuinely useful, the glasses are beginning to show up in workplaces — worn by employees or customers, and raising a set of legal questions that most employers haven't yet thought to ask.

"There are a lot of amazing things they can do," says Sarah Kauder, senior employment lawyer at Minken Employment Lawyers in Markham, Ont. "But I think the two things that are greatest concerns in a working environment would be the ability to take photos and record without other people knowing that that's happening — and without being able to provide consent."

Employees capturing data

Employees have been capturing conversations with managers on phones for years — including termination meetings that then go viral. What smart glasses change is how invisible that recording can be.

"Recording in the workplace isn't anything new," says Kauder. "It's just that [smart glasses] are a more subtle way of doing it. Even if you take your phone out, people are going to see that — but if it's your glasses…"

In addition, an employee wearing smart glasses can take photos, record as they're flipping through confidential information, and potentially pass that on to a competitor, she says.

"Maybe they're contemplating their exit from the workplace and are trying to gather as much information as possible. There are always ways that employees can capture confidential information when they're not supposed to — but smart glasses are just making it even easier for that to happen, and in such a covert way."

There are definite privacy and cybersecurity risks to the new tech, says David Fraser, privacy lawyer and partner at McInnes Cooper in Halifax, adding that contact centres have long prohibited phones on the floor for exactly this reason.

"They don't want the possibility and the risk of somebody taking a photograph of a screen that contains information — and that has been a vector for theft of information."

Employee morale and hidden recordings

Beyond the confidentiality risk, Kauder flags something less obvious: the effect on the people working alongside someone wearing the device.

"Are they going to feel comfortable? Are they going to feel that maybe everything they're doing is being recorded or photos are being taken without their consent? It may impact employee morale. People may not want to necessarily work side by side with someone who's wearing these glasses, because they don't know if something they're saying or doing is going to be recorded and later used against them."

There's a more extreme scenario too, if the glasses are used for bullying purposes, she says.

"You could have a couple of people bullying somebody else in real time, broadcasting to somebody else. That would be completely inappropriate for that to be happening in the workplace, but it opens the door for people who are maybe not the most upstanding citizens who may want to use it for an improper purpose."

Fraser makes a similar point about customer-facing environments.

"These glasses make some people uncomfortable. Do you want to introduce that level of distraction and negative sentiment in a customer interaction?"

Policy first for smart glasses

Both lawyers agree the immediate priority for most employers is the same: update your policies.

"Many workplaces already have policies in place where unauthorized recording is prohibited — cell phones or other devices," says Kauder. "Now, we have yet another piece of technology that is going to make it even easier for unauthorized recordings to take place. So, employees are potentially going to be in breach of existing policies. I think employers are going to have to update their existing policies or create a policy if they don't have one.”

Fraser says mature employers should already have acceptable use and IT policies that cover issues around collecting, ingesting, processing and saving confidential information — but not all do: "If they're not, then I think those policies should be revisited to make sure that that's the case."

And with a well-documented policy that’s clearly communicated to employees, “it would be very difficult for anybody to say that that's heavy handed or inappropriate or not defensible,” he says.

To ban or restrict?

When it comes to what that policy should say, both lawyers land in the same place: it depends on the workplace.

"If it's a situation where there's really no benefit to the advantages that wearing smart glasses would provide in the workplace, then banning them altogether might be the best course of action,” says Kauder.

Alternatively, she says, an employer can allow smart glasses on the condition of disclosure — with clear restrictions on what the employee can and cannot do while wearing them, so “prohibiting the employee from being able to record or take photos of employees or customers without their consent… and… not taking photos or videos of any confidential, proprietary or trademarked information."

Fraser says it’s reasonable to ask employees to only use these devices unless it's necessary or desirable to do their job — such as first-person training videos in warehouses — as long as it’s safe and not distracting.

"In some workplaces, a categorical ban might be the absolute most appropriate thing. And in other cases — let's do it on a case-by-case basis."

But he says a well-documented ban would hold up if challenged.

"I absolutely do think it should stand up if they were to document their reasons for it. And that's really important in all sorts of decision making, to say, ‘We're not just doing this arbitrarily — we're doing this for a reason.’"

Privacy considerations

For employers working through the decision, Fraser says privacy regulators have developed a useful test that applies directly here.

"The privacy regulators have developed what I think is a pretty good framework for asking whether it's appropriate in the circumstances," he says, citing questions such as:

• Is there a compelling need that this serves?
• What are the privacy issues that this raises?
• Are there ways of accomplishing the legitimate objectives of the company in a less privacy-intrusive sort of way?
• Are there mitigation steps that can be put in place?

On that last point, Fraser is specific about what mitigation can look like in practice.

"It's only used at this particular time in these particular circumstances; it's under the control of the employee in terms of when it's off and on; how long is the information retained for [and] what are the circumstances under which the recordings can be accessed?"

The permitted purpose matters too, he says. "If you say it's only used for training purposes, then you probably can't use it for employee discipline."

Going through that process and documenting it means if there's a grievance a year later or somebody complains to the privacy commissioner, says Fraser, “you're not making it up on the spot, you're not justifying it retroactively — because you've already gone through that process and have demonstrated your diligence."

The accommodation question

Both lawyers flag an issue that most employers haven't fully considered yet: what happens when an employee says they need smart glasses as part of a disability accommodation?

"That's a situation that needs to be analyzed on a case-by-case basis and treated very seriously," says Kauder, because employers have a duty to accommodate to the point of undue hardship in Ontario.

However, if smart glasses are part of a legitimate accommodation, that doesn't mean the employee gets unrestricted use. She gives the example of an employee with memory difficulties who needs to record instructions being given to them.

A policy worked out with that employee might permit recording for that specific purpose only.

"You couldn't just turn it on for the sake of recording a conversation that people are having in the lunchroom, for instance. It would only be able to be used for the purposes of facilitating that employee being able to fulfill their duties."

Kauder also cautions employers that accommodation doesn't have to be exactly what the employee is requesting: “It just has to be reasonable in the circumstances… There may be other ways to accomplish the same thing without resorting to smart glasses.”

If an employee needs instructions repeated to them, for example, maybe they can dictate into a phone instead.

Fraser agrees there could be merits to wearing the glasses for people with poor visibility or reading challenges.

“Every employer needs to be ready for the possibility that an employee may see this as helpful assistive technology to assist them with an accommodation requirement… Or it's not even just accommodation, but it helps them do their job better.”

Disciplinary meetings and smart glasses

One specific scenario Kauder says employers may increasingly face: an employee asking to wear — or activate — smart glasses during a disciplinary or termination meeting.

Her advice is not to refuse reflexively, but to ask first.

"I think there's no harm in asking those questions — asking the employee what the intended purpose is of wearing those glasses, what their objective is."

But context matters, she says.

"If you have a very challenging employee and there have been challenges in the workplace and that has led to the reason to part ways with that person, you may not necessarily want to agree to have that employee videotape — because you know that it's not just because they want to remember all the details that were shared in the termination meeting. It's probably for some sort of inappropriate purpose."

When customers start recording

The dynamic flips when it's a customer walking into your business wearing smart glasses — Fraser cites examples of passengers recording disagreements with airline employees.

“Increasingly, people are recording those interactions, but also there are some people who are [using them] to get a reaction.”

He draws the line clearly for business owners:

"If I owned a gift shop, for example, I can put conditions on people coming into my gift shop — in the same way, kind of ‘No shirt, no shoes, no service. And no recording and no pictures on the premises.’ And if somebody does, then they're trespassing and they can be told to leave.”

He's also cautious about overreacting. Citing the experience with camera phones — a technology that prompted fears of widespread voyeurism in change rooms that largely didn't materialize — he suggests waiting until there's a problem before imposing sweeping rules.

"The problem is the taking of the pictures, not the presence of the device."

For Kauder, the customer scenario is important because employers should ensure the privacy of employees is not breached.

It’s also a “cautionary tale” for employers to remind employees to always be professional in dealing with the public, whether that’s in a retail environment or a medical environment with patients and families, for example.

“You never know when you could be recorded — and if you're engaging in inappropriate conduct as an employee during the course of your employment, that could give rise to potential forms of discipline — potentially termination if you're acting in a way that's completely inappropriate and it's being captured."

Behave appropriately

For employers, Kauder's bottom line is blunt: "Anyone in any workplace should presume that there are people who are watching. Whether or not they're recording or taking photos, there are always people around and you always want to make sure that you are behaving in the most appropriate way."

“Just try your best because you don’t know what is being captured and it’s better to have acted your best, then you have to do damage control afterwards.”