Smart glasses are proliferating as a mainstream consumer technology, combining cameras, microphones, sensors and AI capabilities in devices designed to resemble ordinary eyewear. Beyond being a novel technological advancement, smart glasses can have an extraordinary impact on users, particularly users with disabilities, through features such as the ability to explain a user’s immediate surroundings in real time. However, smart glasses also raise distinct privacy challenges due to their ability to collect information about other individuals without their consent or, in some cases, even their awareness.

Smart glasses can capture audio, video, location and potentially biometric information. However, they can be mistaken for conventional glasses with no technological capabilities (unlike smartphones and traditional cameras).

Against this backdrop, the exposure draft of the Privacy Amendment (Personal Data Protection) Bill 2026 (Cth) (Draft Bill) released on 31 August 2026 proposes several changes to the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) (Privacy Act) that may be particularly relevant to organisations that develop, distribute or use smart glasses. While the Draft Bill does not specifically regulate smart glasses, it provides an indication of how Australian privacy regulation is evolving to address emerging technologies that collect personal information in increasingly sophisticated (and potentially covert) ways.

For a broader overview of the proposed Tranche 2 reforms, see our companion article, Tranche 2 Privacy Act Reforms: What you need to know.

Additionally, on 31 August 2026, the eSafety Commissioner published an industry advice, exploring the interplay between smart glasses and safety, providing recommendations to sellers.

A key concern raised by smart glasses is ‘covert recording’ – the ability for smart glasses to collect information about individuals in circumstances where those individuals may be unaware that any such collection is occurring. Unlike traditional recording devices, smart glasses negate many of the visual cues that would ordinarily signal that audio or video recording is taking place, creating challenges around transparency, notice and consent. These challenges are likely to become more pronounced as smart glasses technology evolves. As a result, smart glasses have become the subject of increasing regulatory debate.

The eSafety Commissioner has highlighted its concerns not only about covert recording, but also about the increasing integration of smart glasses with AI-enabled functionality, including image recognition, information retrieval tools and potential biometric identification capabilities. The Commissioner is advocating for mandatory ‘Safety by Design’ features, including clear recording indicators, restrictions on the retrieval of information about members of the public, automatic blurring of individuals who have not consented to being recorded and controls around livestreaming functionality. Some interest groups have even called for restrictions on imports of smart glasses capable of covert recording altogether. While the measures the eSafety Commissioner advocates for are not mandated in the Draft Bill, they provide a useful indication of the potential regulatory trajectory.

Many of the concerns raised by stakeholders are reflected in the Government's proposed reforms to the Privacy Act. Although the Draft Bill does not specifically target smart glasses, several of the proposed changes are likely to have particular relevance for organisations developing, distributing or using these technologies. The table below sets out the key proposed reforms and their significance for organisations developing, distributing, deploying or using smart glasses.

It should be noted, however, that the Draft Bill does not represent a comprehensive smart glasses regulatory framework. Notably, the Draft Bill does not contain restrictions on an individual use basis.

More broadly, smart glasses demonstrate the direction of travel for privacy regulation. As AI-enabled devices become increasingly capable of collecting, analysing and inferring information about individuals in real time, organisations can expect greater scrutiny of how that information is handled.

Organisations that develop, distribute or use smart glasses should consider:

• reviewing the guidance published by the eSafety Commissioner, including its recommended ‘Safety by Design’ features for smart glasses such as clear recording indicators, restrictions on information retrieval about members of the public and controls around livestreaming and assessing whether to voluntarily adopt any of those measures ahead of potential mandated requirements.
• reviewing data collection, use and disclosure practices involving smart glasses to ensure they would be able to satisfy the proposed ‘fair and reasonable' test.
• assessing whether information collected through smart glasses would fall within the proposed expanded definitions of ‘personal information’ and ‘sensitive information’ under the Draft Bill and ensuring that appropriate consent and compliance mechanisms are in place.
• determining whether any disclosure or monetisation of information collected through smart glasses could constitute a ‘trade’ under the Draft Bill, and if so, implementing processes to obtain the required consent.
• making a submission in response to the Draft Bill and its accompanying Consultation Paper (submissions close on 18 September 2026).

While smart glasses may be the latest example of AI-enabled technology being integrated into everyday consumer products, the issues they raise extend well beyond wearable devices. Organisations that proactively address privacy risks now will be better placed to navigate Australia's evolving regulatory landscape.

If you have questions about how these reforms may affect your business, contact our team.