Californians who bought Meta AI glasses may be covered by a proposed class action alleging Meta Platforms’ glasses recorded their conversations without the “Hey Meta” wake phrase, in violation of California’s wiretapping law. No class has been certified and there is nothing to file yet.
Allegations Only · No Settlement Yet
This article describes a class action complaint. The statements below are unproven allegations. Meta Platforms, Inc. has not been found liable, there is no certified class, and nothing to claim at this time. This page is informational and is not legal advice.
What Is This About?
Meta Platforms, Inc. is facing a proposed class action alleging that its Meta AI glasses listened to and recorded wearers’ conversations when no one had said “Hey Meta,” the phrase that is supposed to wake the glasses’ AI assistant. The suit claims those recordings were sent to Meta without the consent of the people speaking, in violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act, the state’s wiretapping and eavesdropping law.The case is Subia v. Meta Platforms, Inc., No. 3:26-cv-12135, filed October 19, 2026 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The complaint was filed by Bursor & Fisher, P.A. on behalf of a California man who says he bought a pair at a LensCrafters store in Sacramento in January 2026 and wore them daily.
The suit was filed days after reports that some owners had found conversations they never addressed to the assistant in their glasses’ voice logs. Meta has not responded in court, and the allegations are unproven.
Free settlement alerts
Get notified when new class actions open to claims
Join thousands of readers who get the latest class action settlements you may qualify for — delivered straight to your inbox.
What the Complaint Alleges
According to the complaint, Meta AI glasses are designed to stay inactive until the wearer says “Hey Meta,” at which point the microphone, camera and AI software switch on to take a question or command. The suit alleges the glasses instead activated, listened and recorded during ordinary conversations in which the wake phrase was never spoken.The named plaintiff says he had many conversations while wearing the glasses, in person and by phone, including sensitive discussions with family, friends, doctors and financial institutions. He alleges those conversations were captured without his triggering the glasses and now appear in his account’s Voice Activity Log, and that he understood before buying them that recording happened only when he activated the device.
The complaint quotes Meta’s own help page for the Voice Activity Log, which says stored voice interactions may be processed using machine learning and trained reviewers to improve Meta products. It says the cause of the unprompted recordings is unknown, and points to user reports that the glasses’ recording light began switching on unexpectedly after a recent firmware update.
Which Glasses Are Covered?
Meta sells its AI glasses under the Ray-Ban Meta and Oakley Meta names, made with the eyewear company Luxottica. The complaint does not single out a brand or model. It defines the product as “Meta AI Glasses,” says they are sold with or without a camera and that every version has a built-in microphone, speaker and AI assistant.The user reports cited in the complaint describe Ray-Ban Meta glasses, including one owner who said three separate pairs across the second and third generations captured conversations without the wake phrase. The complaint also says Meta sold more than 7 million camera-equipped pairs in the past year, and that an audio-only version had been on the market for less than a month when the suit was filed.
The table lists Meta’s AI glasses models and which of them the earlier Bartone complaint names. Because the Subia complaint names no models, the table does not say which ones its proposed class covers.
| Glasses | Camera | Named in Bartone | Amazon |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ray-Ban Meta (Gen 1) | Yes | Yes | Ray-Ban Meta (Gen 1) |
| Ray-Ban Meta (Gen 2) | Yes | Yes | Ray-Ban Meta (Gen 2) |
| Oakley Meta HSTN | Yes | Yes | Oakley Meta HSTN |
| Oakley Meta Vanguard | Yes | Yes | Oakley Meta Vanguard |
| Meta Ray-Ban Displayadds an in-lens display | Yes | Yes | Not linked |
| Ray-Ban Meta AudioClubmaster and Burbank frames · released fall 2026 | No | No | Ray-Ban Meta Audio |
What Meta Has Said
Meta has not answered the lawsuit. Before it was filed, Mashable reported on October 15, 2026 that a Meta spokesperson told Android Authority “This issue has been resolved,” adding that people can manage, review and delete the voice logs of their Meta AI interactions in settings at any time. According to Mashable, Meta did not say what caused the problem.A statement that an issue was resolved is not an admission of liability, and whether any recording violated California law is a question the court has not reached.
The California Law Behind the Suit
The complaint brings two claims under the California Invasion of Privacy Act, known as CIPA:• Penal Code § 631, which bars reading or learning the contents of a communication in transit without the consent of everyone in it, or using information obtained that way; and
• Penal Code § 632, which bars using an electronic recording device to eavesdrop on or record a confidential communication without the consent of all parties, whether the conversation happens in person or over a phone.
California is an all-party consent state, so these provisions turn on whether every person in a conversation agreed to it being recorded. CIPA’s private right of action, Penal Code § 637.2, allows statutory damages of $5,000 per violation or three times actual damages, whichever is greater. The complaint asks for that relief plus an injunction, but the figure is the statutory amount requested, not money anyone has been awarded.
Who Is in the Proposed Class?
The complaint proposes a single class of everyone in California who bought the glasses and had their communications recorded without using the wake phrase. It estimates the class at hundreds of thousands of people. Buyers outside California are not included, and the definition covers purchasers rather than the other people in a recorded conversation. No class has been certified, and the definition can change as the case proceeds.How This Fits With Other Voice and Glasses Cases
This is the second proposed class action over Meta’s AI glasses this year. The Ray-Ban and Oakley Meta human review lawsuit, Bartone et al. v. Meta Platforms, Inc. et al., filed in March 2026, alleges Meta and Luxottica did not disclose that footage captured by the glasses could be reviewed by human contractors. That case brings California consumer protection claims; this one is a wiretapping case about audio captured without the wake phrase.Claims over voice assistants that allegedly recorded after accidental activations have been brought before. The $95 million Apple Siri settlement resolved claims over recordings allegedly captured by unintended Siri activations, and the $68 million Google Assistant settlement, which received final approval on October 13, 2026, covered users affected by what that case called “false accepts.” Each case turns on its own facts, and those settlements say nothing about how this one will end.
What Happens Next
The docket so far shows the complaint and a proposed summons. Meta will have a chance to answer or move to dismiss once it is served. In CIPA cases, defendants commonly argue that users consented through the product’s terms and privacy policy, or that a device maker is a party to the communication rather than an outside eavesdropper.There is no class, settlement, claim form or deadline. If the case is certified or settles, OCA will update this page.
Questions
Are Ray-Ban Meta glasses part of the Meta AI glasses lawsuit?
The complaint covers “Meta AI Glasses” as a product line, with and without a camera, and does not limit the case to one brand or model. Meta sells its AI glasses under the Ray-Ban Meta and Oakley Meta names, and the user reports the complaint relies on describe Ray-Ban Meta pairs. The proposed class is limited to California buyers whose conversations were allegedly recorded without the “Hey Meta” wake phrase, and no class has been certified.
Is there money available from the Meta AI glasses recording lawsuit?
There is no money available at this stage. Subia v. Meta Platforms, Inc. is a newly filed complaint with no certified class, settlement or judgment, so there is no claim form or deadline. The complaint seeks statutory damages of $5,000 per violation under the California Invasion of Privacy Act, but that is the amount requested, not an amount anyone has been awarded.
What has Meta said about the glasses recording without the wake phrase?
Mashable reported on October 15, 2026 that a Meta spokesperson told Android Authority “This issue has been resolved” and said people can manage, review and delete the voice logs of their Meta AI interactions in settings. According to Mashable, Meta did not say what caused the problem. Meta has not yet responded to the lawsuit in court and has not been found liable.
Is this the same case as the Meta glasses human review lawsuit?
They are separate cases. Bartone et al. v. Meta Platforms, Inc. et al., filed in March 2026, alleges Meta and Luxottica failed to disclose that footage captured by the glasses could be reviewed by human contractors, and brings California consumer protection claims. Subia v. Meta Platforms, Inc., filed October 19, 2026, alleges the glasses recorded audio without the wake phrase and brings wiretapping claims under the California Invasion of Privacy Act.
Sources
• Complaint, Subia v. Meta Platforms, Inc., No. 3:26-cv-12135 (N.D. Cal.) (October 19, 2026)• Subia v. Meta Platforms, Inc., docket via CourtListener
• Mashable, “Meta confirms smart glasses were recording without being activated” (October 15, 2026)
• Meta, “Manage your Voice Activity Log for AI glasses”
• California Penal Code §§ 631, 632 and 637.2 (California Invasion of Privacy Act), as quoted in the complaint
