AI Glasses, the Workplace, and the Legal Risks HR Directors Cannot Afford to Ignore

In recent years HR Directors, employers, and employment tribunals have become used to the challenge of internal meetings being surreptitiously recorded, but the advent of AI glasses means it’s no longer just about recording! It’s about:

• the potential for employees to be coached in real time by AI,
• colleagues and clients being recorded without their consent, and
• confidential and personal data being scooped onto systems outside of an employer’s control.

Meta Ray-Ban AI Glasses in Court in California

In February, the use of AI glasses in a courtroom setting hit the news during a Californian trial in which Meta and YouTube were facing allegations that their social media platforms were deliberately designed to be addictive to young users. Members of Mark Zuckerberg’s entourage arrived at court wearing Meta Ray-Ban AI glasses causing Judge Carolyn Kuhl to order wearers to remove them and noting that any use of facial recognition technology to identify the jurors was banned.  CBS News reported that the Judge told the Meta team that if they had recorded anything they would have to dispose of it or be held in contempt of court.

Setting aside the irony of Mar Zuckerberg’s own team demonstrating why wearable recording technology demands robust governance, for HR Directors, the lesson extends far beyond courtroom theatre.  Companies need to manage the real time risk of the same technology sitting in their meeting rooms, production floors, and in client-facing environments.  Technology is moving faster than legal governance forcing employers to navigate the wild west for themselves whilst relying on various data and privacy statutes, none of which quite address the issues new technology presents.

Smart Glasses v AI Glasses

• According to meta “smart glasses keep you connected, mostly acting as an extension of your phone”. They include tiny speakers, microphones and cameras and essentially look like normal eye wear.
• AI glasses on the other hand take this to a whole new level, and “actively assist and respond to you in real time with a simple voice prompt”. When paired with the Meta AI app you can ask questions and get AI answers in real time.  What are smart glasses? AI glasses explained | Meta Store | Meta Store (en-GB)

Smart glasses transform every conversation, every disciplinary hearing, every sensitive HR meeting, every board discussion, every settlement negotiation into a potential covert recording event. AI glasses mean that employers now don’t know whether the answers an employee is providing are their own or coached by AI.  Unlike the crude surreptitious recordings made on mobile phones that employment tribunals have grappled with for years, the evidential and regulatory implications of AI-assisted wearable recording are of an entirely different magnitude.

UAB Business Enterprise v Oneta Limited [2026] EWHC 543 (Ch)

The very recent case of UAB Business Enterprise v Oneta Limited [2026] EWHC 543 (Ch) demonstrates with stark clarity the legal consequences that can flow from their use in proceedings and, by direct analogy, in workplace settings.

On the first day of this nine-day trial, it was noticed that an interference could be heard coming from around the Second Claimant as he was giving evidence and it was discovered that he was wearing smart glasses.  In the judgment delivered on 11 March ICC Judge Agnello KC found that the Second Claimant was being coached through his smart glasses by a third party listening via video link.

The consequences of a witness, under oath, in proceedings before the High Court receiving real-time external assistance through wearable technology that was entirely invisible to the court, to opposing counsel, and to the judge are particularly serious.  It undermines the integrity of the legal system. In this instance the Second Claimant’s denial that he was being coached, his entirely implausible explanation for the various calls that had been made during the relevant time period (contacting a taxi driver) and the subsequent theft of his mobile phones (along with his inconsistent evidence and frequent hesitation) resulted in a finding that he was being untruthful and in the Second and Third Defendants obtaining an indemnity costs order.   UAB Business Enterprise v Oneta Limited [2026] EWHC 543 (Ch) | Selborne Chambers

The significance of Oneta is not confined to litigation. Transpose the facts into a workplace context and the implications multiply rapidly. Consider:

• a witness in an internal disciplinary hearing being told what to say;
• an employee in a protected disclosure meeting being coached via an AI assistant;
• client meetings being recorded without knowledge (of the employer or the client);
• a negotiating counterparty in a settlement meeting recording the entire exchange without consent.

The Legal Landscape

UK GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018

The covert recording of individuals in the workplace engages the UK GDPR. A recording, whether audio, video, or both, constitutes the processing of personal data. Where individuals have not consented to that processing, where no lawful basis for the processing exists, and where no data protection impact assessment has been conducted, that processing is not lawful.

So, employers who permit or fail to prohibit the use of recording wearables in meetings may themselves face regulatory exposure if those recordings result in the unlawful processing of third-party personal data. The ICO’s enforcement approach has evolved significantly and organisations cannot simply plead ignorance of technology they could reasonably have anticipated.

Misconduct

Whilst it is not generally unlawful for an employee to covertly record a meeting with their employer such conduct will typically amount to misconduct (especially where covert recording is expressly prohibited).  As long ago as 2019 (yes I did just write that – and in technological terms 2019 seems a very long time ago indeed) in the case of Phoenix House Ltd v Stockman, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) recognised that covert recording is straightforward and increasingly common. The EAT held that an employment tribunal is not bound to conclude that such recording necessarily undermines trust and confidence to the extent that an employer should dismiss the employee but the EAT did indicate that when faced with covert recordings tribunals must assess the circumstances, including the purpose and blameworthiness of the recording.  It is obviously good practice for both parties to declare any intention to record a meeting and employers not checking at the outset of a meeting whether employees are recording are missing a trick.

An employee’s failure to declare that they are recording will generally amount to misconduct.  However, it is not (despite a common misconception) not automatically gross misconduct or unlawful.  The purpose, context, and what was recorded are relevant factors to consider, as is any evidence of the employer’s attitude to such conduct. Disciplinary procedures rarely classify covert recording as gross misconduct although it is clear that employers should be considering clear prohibitions and misconduct classifications in their policies.

What is less developed in case law is the position where AI glasses are used not merely to record but to receive real-time coaching or assistance during the meeting itself. The Oneta facts introduce a qualitatively different form of conduct, the active deception of a process. In an internal investigation or disciplinary hearing, a witness receiving real-time AI prompts to shape their answers is manipulating the integrity of the process and may well be being duplicitous in the answers they are providing. That conduct is, likely to be treated by the Tribunal as serious misconduct going to the heart of the employment relationship and justifying a gross misconduct dismissal.  Just make sure you get the process right, as you are almost certainly going to be recorded!

Human Rights Act 1998

Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, incorporated into UK law via the Human Rights Act 1998, protects the right to respect for private and family life. Workplace surveillance, especially covert, arguably interferes with Article 8.  If undertaken on behalf of the employer (perhaps by a manager trying to catch a colleague out) an employer may well be vicariously liable for the infringement of privacy rights of colleagues. Any such surveillance would need to be justified as lawful, necessary, and proportionate to a legitimate aim such as the prevention or detection of crime or serious misconduct.

ACAS Code of Practice and Procedural Integrity

HR Directors invest significant resource in ensuring that disciplinary and grievance processes comply with the ACAS Code of Practice and withstand tribunal scrutiny. The introduction of covert AI-assisted wearables into those processes is capable of undermining the evidential foundation of an investigation. Where a witness statement has been shaped by real-time AI coaching, its reliability is arguably fatally compromised calling into question whether the investigation conducted is reasonable and whether the employer can possibly have a reasonable belief that misconduct has occurred. Where a meeting has been covertly recorded, every participant’s reasonable expectation of confidentiality has been breached.

The practical implication is that HR must now treat the integrity of the physical environment of any meeting with the same rigour applied to the legal process itself.

Criminal Law

Lastly let’s also not forget that interception of communications on public networks or private systems without appropriate authority or consent can be a criminal offence.

What Should HR Directors Do Now?

• Policy Update: Acceptable use and technology policies must be updated explicitly to address wearable recording devices, including AI glasses.
• Consider a blanket prohibition on recording devices in certain categories of meeting (disciplinary hearings, grievance meetings, settlement discussions, board meetings, client meetings) is both lawful and necessary.
• Pre-Meeting Protocol: For any formal internal meeting, HR should implement a standard pre-meeting declaration requiring participants to confirm they are not wearing or carrying active recording devices.
• Contractual Provisions: Employment contracts and confidentiality agreements should be reviewed to ensure they expressly address the use of wearable recording technology. This is particularly important for senior employees, those with access to confidential information, and those involved in sensitive HR processes.
• Training: Line managers and HR teams must be trained to recognise what AI glasses look like, to understand the legal framework, and to know what to do if they suspect a meeting is being covertly recorded.
• Incident Response: Organisations must have a clear protocol for what happens if a covert recording is discovered during or after a meeting. The Oneta judgment underlines that the courts will treat such conduct with the utmost seriousness, and employers who handle the discovery competently preserving evidence, taking appropriate action will be better placed both in any subsequent litigation and before the ICO.

This article is intended as general legal commentary and does not constitute legal advice in relation to any specific situation. HR Directors facing specific issues concerning wearable technology in the workplace should seek specialist employment law advice.

Author