UK cinema operators are considering restrictions on camera-enabled smart glasses over concerns that the technology could make it easier for audiences to secretly record films, while also weighing the potential benefits the devices offer to people with disabilities.
The UK Cinema Association (UKCA), which represents the country's cinema industry, said many major cinema chains could introduce policies to prohibit or restrict the wearing of smart glasses equipped with cameras.
The move comes as Meta's AI-powered glasses become increasingly popular and attract growing attention because of their ability to capture photographs and video discreetly.
According to the UKCA, all of the UK's major cinema operators are examining how they should respond to the technology. Some members of the public have referred to the devices as "spy glasses" or "pervert glasses" because of the privacy and surveillance concerns surrounding their built-in cameras.
Despite the growing debate, the UKCA said it was not aware of any cinema chain in Britain that had formally introduced a blanket ban on the glasses.
The industry's dilemma centres on how to protect films from piracy and safeguard the privacy of cinema-goers without unnecessarily preventing people with disabilities from using technology that can make their experience more accessible.
UKCA chief executive Phil Clapp said smart glasses could provide important assistance to some cinema patrons, particularly those with visual impairments or hearing difficulties.
"These glasses can be useful to some moviegoers," Mr Clapp said, noting that some smart frames can provide bespoke subtitling.
The technology therefore presents cinemas with a difficult balancing act. While the prospect of someone recording an entire film using a discreetly positioned camera is a serious concern for film distributors and exhibitors, the same devices can provide accessibility features that conventional cinema equipment may not offer.
Why the concern is growing
Smart glasses have existed in various forms for years, but Meta's latest generation has achieved significantly wider popularity.
More than seven million pairs were sold in 2025 alone, helping to push the technology into the mainstream. A high-profile advertising campaign featuring billionaire Kylie Jenner has also contributed to the renewed interest in AI-enabled eyewear.
Meta's glasses go far beyond simply taking photographs.
Users can record video, listen to music, make telephone calls and interact with an artificial-intelligence assistant. Some models also incorporate a display into the right lens, allowing wearers to read messages, translate conversations and view maps without reaching for a smartphone.
That combination of convenience, connectivity and discreet recording capability has fuelled both enthusiasm and concern.
For cinemas, the biggest issue is the possibility that the glasses could be used to capture copyrighted films inside auditoriums. Unlike a conventional camera, a pair of smart glasses can appear to be part of a person's everyday clothing, making it potentially more difficult for staff to identify recording activity.
The technology also raises wider privacy questions because people around the wearer may not immediately know that they are being photographed or filmed.
Other venues introduce restrictions
The debate is not confined to cinemas.
Businesses and public institutions across Britain have begun considering how existing rules governing recording should apply to the new generation of wearable technology.
Wetherspoons, one of the UK's largest pub chains, has effectively prohibited recording with smart glasses in its pubs.
ATG Theatres, which operates venues including theatres in London as well as the Edinburgh Playhouse and Bristol Hippodrome, will also prevent visitors from using the glasses to record performances.
The issue has also reached Britain's courts.
His Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service told The Guardian: "the use of Meta glasses is prohibited", citing existing restrictions on taking photographs and recording video inside courts and tribunals.
The responses illustrate the growing challenge posed by technology that can perform the functions of a camera while being worn as an ordinary pair of spectacles.
Meta defends the technology
Meta, however, has argued that restrictions could have serious consequences for people who rely on the glasses for accessibility.
A spokesperson said the devices "provide critical new technology for people in the blind and low-vision community".
"Limiting how people can use this technology would be a major step backwards," the spokesperson added.
Meta also acknowledged that there are circumstances in which filming should not be permitted, but argued that restrictions should be applied fairly and consistently.
"Naturally, some places shouldn't be filmed at all, and that's reasonable, but rules should be applied consistently," the spokesperson said.
The company also pointed to a built-in privacy safeguard: a light that illuminates when the glasses are taking a photograph or recording video.
"Our glasses have a light that turns on to let people know when a photo or video is taken, something smartphones and other cameras don't have," the spokesperson said.
A new challenge for cinemas
For cinema operators, however, the presence of a recording indicator may not completely resolve the problem.
The industry must consider not only whether people can technically record films, but also whether staff can reliably identify inappropriate use in dark auditoriums without disrupting other customers.
Any restrictions will also have to take accessibility into account, particularly where smart glasses are being used for subtitling, visual assistance or other features designed to help people enjoy films independently.
The UKCA's position reflects that tension. Cinemas are increasingly alert to the piracy and privacy risks associated with camera-enabled wearables, but operators have yet to settle on a uniform approach.
As the technology becomes more widespread, the debate is likely to move beyond whether smart glasses should be allowed in cinemas to the more complicated question of how venues can distinguish between legitimate accessibility use and unauthorised recording.