Secretly filmed by Meta glasses: Why a Delhi man is demanding Rs 2.05 crore (Reuters image)
A Delhi man has sent a legal notice to an Instagram creator and Meta Platforms after he was allegedly harassed and covertly filmed at a café using Ray-Ban Meta smart glasses. The footage was subsequently posted on Instagram and viewed more than 4.19 lakh times. He has demanded that the video be removed, an apology issued and ₹2.05 crore paid in damages. But the notice, issued on August 24, goes beyond the actions of the creator. It seeks to hold Meta responsible in two capacities: as the owner of Instagram, which allegedly continued to host the reel after receiving complaints, and as the technology company behind the design and marketing of the camera-equipped glasses used to record it. The Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF), which provided the victim pro bono legal assistance, says this is, to its knowledge, among the first legal actions in India to directly raise the liability of a smart-glasses maker for harm allegedly enabled by its product design. The case has not been decided by a court yet and the claims in the notice, so far, remain allegations. The man, whose identity has been withheld and who is referred to as X, is represented by advocate Apar Gupta.
So, what allegedly happened?
According to IFF, X was sitting alone at a Costa Coffee outlet in Delhi’s Khan Market on July 24 when a stranger, who eventually turned out to be a creator, approached him. The creator allegedly pestered and insulted him with unsolicited questions and remarks and followed him inside the café. X complained to the staff and eventually moved to another seating area to get away from the unpleasant situation thrust upon him. What he did not know, IFF says, was that the encounter was allegedly being recorded through Ray-Ban Meta smart glasses. One or more of the creator’s associates also allegedly filmed the exchange from other angles without his knowledge or consent. The footage was posted as an Instagram reel on July 26. By August 6, according to IFF, it had received more than 4.19 lakh views, approximately 15,700 likes and over 500 comments. X reported both the video and the account to Instagram on July 27. According to IFF, the reporting menu offered no category specifically covering invasion of privacy or non-consensual recording. The victim, therefore, selected “bullying or harassment”. He also submitted a separate complaint to Meta’s grievance officer for India under “Privacy violation — sharing of personal information or representation without consent.” Instagram subsequently informed him that the reported material doesn’t go against its “Community Standards”, according to IFF.
Why has Meta been named?
The most significant part of the notice concerns the glasses themselves. Developed by Meta in partnership with eyewear company EssilorLuxottica, Ray-Ban Meta glasses resemble conventional eyewear but allow users to take photographs and record videos hands-free. They were launched in India in May 2025 at a starting price of ₹29,900. The glasses have a small white capture LED on the front that indicates when the camera is being used. The notice argues that this warning is inadequate because it can easily be missed by someone who does not know that the glasses contain a camera. “The recording indicator on the said devices is inadequate and easily overlooked, and the harm that eventuated to our client is due to a design that is foreseeably enabled,” the notice states. It argues that Meta “owed and breached a duty of care” to X and was negligent in contributing to the alleged intrusion into his privacy. Crucially, the notice argues that this liability arises from Meta’s own product-design and marketing decisions and is therefore separate from its role as an online intermediary.
Join conversation
Share your thoughts in the comments
Be respectful · TOI community guidelines
Section 79 of the Information Technology Act provides conditional protection to online intermediaries against liability for content posted by third parties. The notice contends that such protection cannot extend to a negligence claim arising from Meta’s own product design. That argument has not yet been tested in court. The Delhi dispute could now test a different question: whether a company that makes wearable cameras has a responsibility not merely to indicate that recording is taking place, but to ensure that an unsuspecting bystander can reasonably understand that they are being filmed. To know more, subscribe and read the full story on TOI+ —Secretly filmed by Meta glasses: Why a Delhi man is demanding Rs 2.05 crore
What Meta says about safeguards against covert recording
What studies have found about privacy and camera-equipped glasses
What the legal notice demands from Meta and the Instagram creator
End of Article
