Can a business ban Meta Ray-Bans or smart glasses on their premises?

In the wake of Kmart’s $89 camera glasses selling out and Meta’s Ray-Bans raising ambient privacy concerns, many businesses are asking a straightforward question: can we simply ban them? The answer is more nuanced than most operators expect.

1. A Business Can Set Premises Rules

As a matter of general property and contract law, a business that invites the public onto its premises may impose reasonable conditions on entry, including restrictions on recording devices. Failure to comply with a clearly communicated, reasonable condition is grounds for refusing entry or removing a patron. This is not in dispute.

2. The Disability Discrimination Complication

The complication arises because AI-enabled smart glasses are a genuine assistive technology. A person with a vision or hearing impairment may rely on smart glasses for:

• Live scene description of their surroundings;
• Object and obstacle identification for navigation;
• Real-time captioning of speech and ambient sound; and
• Text-to-speech conversion of signage and menus.

The Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) prohibits direct and indirect discrimination on the grounds of disability in the provision of goods, services, and access to premises. A blanket ban on camera-equipped glasses, applied without exception, would apply equally to a person wearing fashionable camera sunglasses and to a person who relies on the same form factor as a reasonable adjustment for a disability. That is indirect discrimination: a condition that appears neutral on its face but has a disproportionate adverse effect on a person with a disability.

3. What Is Required Instead

A compliant premises policy must:

• Distinguish clearly between recording for entertainment or content creation and use of smart glasses as an assistive device;
• Allow for individual assessment rather than a blanket prohibition; and
• Be applied consistently and without requiring a person to justify their disability or prove a clinical diagnosis at the door.

A business would not ban a hearing aid or a white cane; it should not apply a blanket ban to the device that performs an equivalent function for a person with different needs.

4. Practical Drafting Guidance

A defensible premises policy on smart glasses should:

• Prohibit recording and streaming of other patrons without consent;
• Require patrons to keep recording indicator lights functional and visible if worn for personal use;
• Contain an express exception for devices used as assistive technology; and
• Be administered by staff trained to make reasonable, case-by-case assessments rather than apply a blanket exclusion.

5. The Privacy Act Overlay for Business Deployment

If a business deploys smart glasses for its own staff for training, quality assurance, or customer analytics, a further layer of obligation applies entirely independent of the premises policy question: the full Australian Privacy Principles under the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) attach, including the higher consent threshold for sensitive biometric data collected through facial recognition features. See our FAQ on smart glasses, facial recognition and the Privacy Act for the full analysis.

Related Topics

• Smart Glasses, Cameras and the Death of Ambient Privacy
• Are smart glasses legal to use in Queensland?
• Smart glasses, facial recognition and the Privacy Act
• What is the federal privacy tort for serious invasions of privacy?
• What are my legal obligations following a data breach?

Need advice on privacy compliance or drafting premises policies for recording technology? Call Bell & Senior Lawyers at (07) 5532 8777 or contact us online .