Meta AI glasses Hey Meta recording lawsuit (Subia v. Meta Platforms)

A California owner of Meta AI Glasses has sued Meta Platforms, saying his glasses recorded private conversations even though he never said the wake phrase "Hey Meta." Angelo Subia filed the proposed class action on October 19, 2026, in federal court in Northern California.

The lawsuit claims the recordings broke the California Invasion of Privacy Act, a state wiretapping law that allows statutory damages of $5,000 per violation. The proposed class covers people in California who bought the glasses and had communications recorded without the wake phrase.

Meta says the issue has been resolved and that it intends to fight the case. Nothing has been decided. There is no settlement, payment or claim form. A larger, separate case over Meta's glasses is already moving forward for buyers, users and bystanders nationwide, and this page explains both.

Angelo Subia is the named plaintiff. The complaint says he lives in Plumas Lake, California, bought Meta AI Glasses at a LensCrafters store in Sacramento in or about January 2026 and has worn them daily since.

Meta Platforms, Inc. is the only defendant. The complaint describes it as a Delaware corporation headquartered in Menlo Park, California. Meta sells camera-equipped AI glasses with Ray-Ban and Oakley branding, plus an audio-only model that the complaint says had been on sale for less than a month when the case was filed.

Bursor & Fisher, P.A. represents Subia, through attorneys Neal J. Deckant and Joshua B. Glatt, with two more attorneys seeking permission to appear from out of state.

The case is Subia v. Meta Platforms, Inc., filed as No. 3:26-cv-12135 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. A docket tracker shows the case was reassigned on October 23, 2026, after a filing on whether to proceed before a magistrate judge. Class Action Pulse has not confirmed which judge now holds it.

According to the complaint:

• Subia wore the glasses during sensitive conversations, in person and by phone, with family, friends, doctors and financial institutions.
• He never said "Hey Meta" during those conversations. Even so, the glasses allegedly listened, recorded and sent the audio to Meta, and the recordings now appear in the Voice Activity Log tied to his Meta account.
• He says he understood before buying that the glasses recorded only when activated, and he never agreed to recordings he did not start.
• The complaint cites mid-October 2026 news reports in which owners described glasses capturing ordinary conversations without the wake phrase, and some said a light came on after a firmware update.
• It quotes Meta's help page, which says Meta can process stored voice interactions "using machine learning and trained reviewers."

The complaint also says Meta sold more than 7 million pairs of camera glasses in the past year. It admits that "the cause of Defendant's wiretapping is unknown."

The plaintiff says the glasses are not supposed to listen or record until the user says the trigger words, and that recording and sending private conversations to Meta without consent is illegal eavesdropping under California law.

Meta told Android Authority on October 13, 2026: "This issue has been resolved. People can manage, review and delete voice logs of their interactions with Meta AI via settings at any time." After the lawsuit, Meta told Bloomberg Law it intends to fight. "Privacy was built into our glasses from the ground up," it said, adding that Meta AI starts with "Hey Meta" or a touch and that people can review and delete their voice logs. Meta has not explained what caused the activations or how many owners were affected. It has not yet filed a response in court.

The court has decided nothing in the Subia case. No judge has ruled on whether accidental activation of a consumer device can violate the state wiretapping law, whether a class can be certified or whether anyone is owed money.

A separate, earlier case. In re Meta AI Glasses Litigation, No. 3:26-cv-01897-EMC, is pending before Judge Edward M. Chen in the same court. Its consolidated complaint, filed August 31, 2026, names Meta, Luxottica of America and data-labeling contractor Sama. It alleges that footage and audio captured by the glasses, including accidental activations, were sent to human reviewers in Nairobi, Kenya, to train Meta's AI. It proposes nationwide classes of buyers, of users and of bystanders recorded by the glasses, plus many state subclasses. Class Action Pulse did not review Meta's court response in that case, and Class Action Pulse has not confirmed whether the Subia case will be linked to it.

The Subia complaint proposes one class:

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

Meta, its employees, the judges and the lawyers are excluded. The complaint estimates hundreds of thousands of members but does not know the exact number. Membership depends on proof that your glasses recorded without the wake phrase, such as Voice Activity Log entries you did not trigger.

Outside California, or if you were recorded by someone else's glasses, the broader consolidated case may be more relevant. Its proposed classes cover buyers and users anywhere in the United States, and people recorded by the glasses. None of these classes has been certified.

1. Check your Voice Activity Log. Meta's help page puts it in the Meta AI app under Glasses, then Device settings, then Glasses privacy.
2. Record before you delete. If you see recordings you did not trigger, note dates or take screenshots first. Meta also offers a Download Your Information tool.
3. Keep proof of purchase, such as a LensCrafters, Ray-Ban, Meta or other retailer receipt, with the model name.
4. Write down any unexplained activations, including dates, the light turning on, and whether "Respond without Hey Meta" was turned off.
5. Watch for class notice in either case if a class is certified or a settlement is reached.

Nothing is available now. The Subia complaint asks for the greater of $5,000 per violation or three times actual damages under California Penal Code section 637.2, plus an injunction, attorneys' fees and a jury trial. Nothing has been awarded, and the number of violations a court might count is unknown. Any payment would require a court win or a court-approved settlement.

• About January 2026: Subia buys the glasses, according to the complaint.
• August 31, 2026: Consolidated complaint filed in In re Meta AI Glasses Litigation.
• October 13, 2026: Android Authority reports owners' recording complaints; Meta says the issue has been resolved.
• October 19, 2026: Subia complaint filed.
• October 23, 2026: Subia case reassigned, according to a docket tracker.

You do not need to do anything to stay in a proposed class. If a class is certified, notice would explain any right to opt out.

• Wake phrase: The words, here "Hey Meta," that tell a voice assistant to start listening for a request.
• CIPA: The California Invasion of Privacy Act, a 1967 law against wiretapping and recording confidential conversations without consent.
• Section 632: The part of CIPA that bars recording a confidential communication without the consent of all parties.
• Voice Activity Log: Meta's record of stored voice interactions with Meta AI on your glasses.
• Consolidated case: Several lawsuits combined into one before one judge.

Meta will answer or ask the court to dismiss the Subia claims. The court may also decide whether the case belongs with the larger consolidated case before Judge Chen. Discovery could reveal what caused the activations and how long they lasted. Class Action Pulse will update this page as the docket moves.

This page relies on the filed Subia complaint, the consolidated complaint in In re Meta AI Glasses Litigation, Meta's statements to Android Authority and Bloomberg Law, and Meta's help page. The cause and scale of the activations are unknown. The current Subia judge and any link to the consolidated case were not confirmed from a primary docket. Meta's position in the consolidated case was not reviewed.

Class Action Pulse is not a law firm or settlement administrator and does not guarantee eligibility or payment. This article is general information, not legal advice.