Check Your Claims
Class Action Pulse
Legal News Data Privacy

Meta AI glasses lawsuit says smart glasses recorded conversations without Hey Meta

Subia v. Meta Platforms, filed October 19, 2026 in San Francisco federal court, alleges Meta AI Glasses recorded conversations without the Hey Meta wake phrase, violating California's Invasion of Privacy Act. The proposed class covers California buyers. Meta says the issue was resolved and it will fight the case. There is no settlement or claim form.

By Class Action Pulse Staff Published

Reported from primary sources · Verified against official filings and settlement records.

Estimated reading time: 9 minutes.

Key facts

  • What happened: A California man sued Meta Platforms on October 19, 2026, alleging that Meta AI Glasses recorded his private conversations even when he never said the wake phrase "Hey Meta."
  • The case: Subia v. Meta Platforms, Inc., No. 3:26-cv-12135, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
  • Who is suing: Angelo Subia of Plumas Lake, California, who says he bought the glasses at a LensCrafters store in Sacramento in or about January 2026 and wore them every day.
  • The legal claims: Two counts under the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA), Penal Code sections 631 and 632. CIPA allows statutory damages of $5,000 per violation or three times actual damages, whichever is greater.
  • Who the case would cover: Everyone in California who bought the glasses and had their communications recorded without using the wake phrase, if a judge certifies the class.
  • Status: Newly filed. Meta told Bloomberg Law it intends to fight the case. There is no settlement, payment or claim form.

In this article

What the lawsuit claims

Meta sells camera-equipped and audio-only smart glasses that include a microphone, speaker and its Meta AI assistant. The complaint describes them as wearable AI assistants that answer questions, comment on what the wearer sees, read and respond to messages and take phone calls.

The lawsuit was filed by Angelo Subia, who lives in Plumas Lake, a community north of Sacramento. According to the complaint, he bought a pair of Meta AI Glasses in or about January 2026 and has worn them daily since. He says he wore them during sensitive conversations, in person and by phone, with family, friends, doctors and financial institutions.

Subia says he never intentionally said "Hey Meta" during those conversations. Even so, the complaint alleges, the glasses listened to and recorded what was said, and those recordings now appear in the Voice Activity Log tied to his Meta account. He says he understood before buying the glasses that they recorded only when he activated them, and that he never gave Meta permission to record conversations he did not start.

The defendant is Meta Platforms, Inc., a Delaware corporation headquartered at 1 Meta Way in Menlo Park, California. The complaint says Meta sold more than 7 million pairs of its camera-equipped AI glasses in the past year, and that an audio-only version without a camera had been on the market for slightly less than a month when the case was filed.

These are allegations The complaint describes what the plaintiff says happened and what he believes he can prove. Meta has not filed a response in court, and no judge has ruled on whether the glasses recorded anyone unlawfully.

How the wake phrase is supposed to work

Voice assistants generally rely on a "wake word" or wake phrase. The device listens locally for a short trigger, and only after it hears that trigger does it begin capturing a request and sending it for processing. For Meta's glasses, that trigger is "Hey Meta." Meta told Bloomberg Law that the assistant can also be started by touch.

The complaint calls "Hey Meta" the "Trigger Words" and argues the product "is not supposed to record or listen unless and until the consumer triggers it." Its core allegation is that the glasses activated, listened and recorded without that trigger.

Meta's own help page explains what happens to voice interactions once they are captured. The page says the company stores voice interactions to "better understand and fulfill requests" and to respond to different speech patterns, and that it "can process stored voice interactions using machine learning and trained reviewers to improve Meta products." The complaint quotes this passage to argue that recordings captured by mistake were not simply discarded on the device.

What users reported and what Meta said

The lawsuit builds on news reports published in mid-October 2026.

  • Android Authority, October 13, 2026. The outlet reported that a Ray-Ban Meta owner said three separate pairs, spanning second- and third-generation models, captured ordinary conversations without the wake phrase. The complaint quotes the user's statement that this happened even when the "Respond without Hey Meta" setting was turned off.
  • User comments. According to the reports cited in the complaint, several commenters described similar unexplained activations, including the glasses' internal light turning on without anyone invoking Meta AI. Some said the light activated "after a recent firmware update."
  • Mashable and TechSpot, October 15, 2026. Both outlets published follow-up stories. Mashable's headline said Meta "confirms smart glasses were recording without being activated."

Meta gave Android Authority a statement that the outlet added to its story on the afternoon of October 13: "This issue has been resolved. People can manage, review and delete voice logs of their interactions with Meta AI via settings at any time." Meta did not explain in that statement what caused the activations or how many users were affected.

After the lawsuit was filed, Meta told Bloomberg Law it intends to fight the claims. "Privacy was built into our glasses from the ground up," the company said, adding that "Meta AI is initiated by saying 'Hey Meta' or by touch, queries sent to Meta AI are visible to the wearer, and people can review, manage and delete their voice logs in settings at any time."

The complaint itself says "the cause of Defendant's wiretapping is unknown." That matters. Meta's statement that the issue has been resolved and the plaintiff's claim that recordings happened are not necessarily in conflict, but the size, length and cause of the problem have not been established by anyone outside the company.

The lawsuit relies on the California Invasion of Privacy Act, a state law originally passed in 1967 to address wiretapping and eavesdropping. Plaintiffs have increasingly used it in cases about websites, apps and connected devices.

  • Count I, Penal Code section 631. This section prohibits reading or learning the contents of a communication in transit without the consent of all parties, and using information obtained that way. The complaint argues the glasses captured conversations and sent them to Meta without consent.
  • Count II, Penal Code section 632. This section bars recording a "confidential communication" without the consent of everyone involved. A conversation is generally considered confidential when a participant reasonably expects it is not being overheard or recorded. The complaint points to conversations with doctors and financial institutions as examples.

A separate section, 637.2, lets a person harmed by a CIPA violation sue for the greater of $5,000 per violation or three times actual damages. Because that amount applies per violation, CIPA cases can carry large potential exposure. That is a reason they are frequently contested, and courts have reached different conclusions on how the statute applies to newer technology.

What the plaintiff is asking for The complaint asks the court to certify a class, award statutory and other damages, issue an injunction against the alleged recording, and grant attorneys' fees and a jury trial. No amount has been awarded, and none is guaranteed.

The case was filed in federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act, which lets class cases with more than $5 million at stake and at least one class member from a different state than the defendant proceed in federal court. Subia is represented by Bursor & Fisher, a firm that has filed many consumer privacy class actions. The complaint lists Neal J. Deckant and Joshua B. Glatt, with two additional attorneys seeking permission to appear from out of state.

Who could be part of the class

The proposed class is limited to California. It covers:

All persons in the State of California who purchased the Product and had their communications recorded without using the Trigger Words.

Two features of that definition are worth noting. First, it covers buyers, not everyone whose voice may have been picked up. Second, class membership depends on whether a person's glasses actually recorded without the wake phrase, which could require proof such as entries in a Voice Activity Log.

The complaint estimates there are hundreds of thousands of class members, but it says the plaintiff does not know the exact number. Meta's employees, the judges assigned to the case and the lawyers involved are excluded. The definition can change as the case proceeds, and it has no legal effect unless a judge certifies it.

Timeline

Date Event
About January 2026 Subia buys Meta AI Glasses in Sacramento, according to the complaint
October 13, 2026 Android Authority reports user claims about recordings without "Hey Meta"; Meta says the issue has been resolved
October 15, 2026 Mashable and TechSpot publish follow-up reports
October 19, 2026 Subia v. Meta Platforms is filed in the Northern District of California
October 20, 2026 Meta tells Bloomberg Law it intends to fight the case

What owners can do now

If you own Meta AI Glasses, you do not need to do anything to stay part of a possible class. If the case is certified or settles, notice would be sent or published with instructions. There is nothing to file today.

You can review what the glasses have recorded. According to Meta's help page, the Voice Activity Log is in the Meta AI app under Glasses, then Device settings, then Glasses privacy. From there you can review and delete stored voice interactions. Meta's help page also says you can download your information through its Download Your Information tool.

Before you delete anything If you see recordings you did not trigger, you may want to note the dates, or take screenshots, before deleting them. That record could help you understand what happened and answer questions later if you are contacted about a class action. Deleting logs is your choice; nothing in this lawsuit requires you to keep or remove them.

People who were near a glasses wearer, rather than owners, are not part of the proposed class as currently defined.

For cases that are accepting claimants now, see our list of class action cases you can join.

What remains unresolved

  • The cause. Neither Meta's public statements nor the complaint identify why the glasses activated without the wake phrase.
  • The scale. No public figure shows how many pairs or recordings were affected, or over what period.
  • Meta's legal response. Meta has said it will fight but has not yet filed an answer or motion to dismiss.
  • Whether CIPA applies. The court has not decided whether accidental activation of a consumer device can violate sections 631 or 632.
  • Relationship to other cases. We have not confirmed whether similar lawsuits have been filed elsewhere.

This article is for information only and is not legal advice. The allegations have not been proven, and Meta disputes them.

What happens next

Meta will respond to the complaint, likely by answering it or asking the court to dismiss some or all of the claims. If the case survives, the parties would move into discovery, where Meta's internal records about the activations could become important. A class certification decision, if it comes, would usually be months away. We will update this story as the case develops.

Frequently asked questions

What is the Meta AI glasses lawsuit about?

A California owner alleges Meta AI Glasses recorded his conversations without the "Hey Meta" wake phrase and sent them to Meta, violating the California Invasion of Privacy Act.

Did Meta admit the glasses were recording?

Meta told Android Authority that "this issue has been resolved," but it has not explained the cause. Meta told Bloomberg Law it intends to fight the lawsuit.

Who can join the Meta glasses class action?

There is nothing to join yet. The proposed class covers California buyers whose glasses recorded communications without the wake phrase, and it exists only if a court certifies it.

How much money could owners receive?

No money has been awarded. CIPA allows $5,000 per violation or three times actual damages, but any payout would depend on a ruling or settlement.

How do I check my Voice Activity Log?

Meta says to open the Meta AI app, go to Glasses, Device settings, Glasses privacy and then Voice activity log.

Does the lawsuit cover people outside California?

No. The proposed class is limited to people in California, although the definition could change as the case moves forward.

Sources

Class Action Pulse is a news and information service, not a law firm, and this article is general information — not legal advice. Eligibility, deadlines, and payouts are set by each settlement's official administrator and the courts; always verify the details through the official source before you file.