AI smart glasses: what is allowed today, and what does the announced ban mean?

A salesperson turns up to a client meeting wearing new glasses. The small light by the hinge means they are recording, and an AI assistant is listening in and writing up the minutes. The same afternoon a shop assistant asks the manager whether it is fine that a customer is walking around the shop in similar glasses, apparently reading the price tags out loud. The example is made up, but both situations are now common. The answer depends on who is wearing the glasses, where, and whether a business processes the recordings.

What are AI smart glasses, and what has the government announced?

AI smart glasses are glasses with a camera, a microphone and a built-in AI assistant that can take photos and video, describe the surroundings and in some cases recognise faces. The recordings are often processed in the supplier’s cloud service.

On 5 October 2026 the Norwegian Ministry of Digitalisation and Public Governance announced that the government will propose a temporary ban on the use of AI glasses in selected places. These are public places such as parks, beaches, museums, shopping centres and public events, places where children spend time such as schools, kindergartens and playgrounds, and privacy-sensitive places such as health institutions and gyms with changing rooms and showers. Universities and university colleges may be added.

The ban does not apply yet. The press release gives no legal basis, consultation deadline or date of entry into force, only that a bill will be put forward as quickly as possible. Nor is it settled whether the ban will target glasses with camera and audio recording or body-worn technology more broadly. An expert group will look into permanent regulation in parallel. As early as August 2026 the ministry urged public and private organisations to set their own rules for smart glasses on their premises and in the workplace.

On 5 October 2026 the Members of Parliament Kirsti Bergstø and Mirell Høyer-Berntsen (Socialist Left Party) put forward a representative proposal asking the Norwegian Parliament to request the government to propose, as soon as possible, a temporary ban on the sale and use of body-worn technology with an integrated camera or other sensors that enable covert surveillance of others (Dokument 8:8 S (2026–2027)). Under the proposal the ban would apply until comprehensive regulation of the technology is in place, with an exception for people who need the technology as an aid. The proposal goes further than the government’s announcement, because it also covers sale and is not limited to particular places. The proposal was announced in the Norwegian Parliament on 15 October 2026 and referred to the Standing Committee on Local Government and Public Administration, and it has not been considered.

Is it legal to use AI smart glasses today?

Yes. No Norwegian rule prohibits AI glasses. But anyone filming other people must follow the rules that apply to all recordings, and that is where most of the risk lies.

The GDPR does not apply to a natural person processing personal data in the course of a purely personal or household activity, under GDPR Art. 2(2)(c). The exemption is narrow. In Ryneš (C-212/13) the Court of Justice of the EU held that a private surveillance camera which also covered the public pavement was not purely personal. The judgment concerned the former Data Protection Directive, but the exemption has been carried over with the same content.

Ryneš concerned a fixed camera. How far the judgment reaches for a private individual filming in the street with glasses has not been decided. In our view occasional holiday photos fall within the exemption, while continuous recording of strangers, particularly with facial recognition or publication, probably falls outside it. Either way, Copyright Act § 104 in the Copyright Act (åndsverkloven) applies. As a general rule, images of a person must not be made available to the public without consent.

When does the GDPR apply to AI smart glasses?

The GDPR applies in full as soon as a business uses the glasses, or a private individual goes beyond the household exemption. A legal basis under GDPR Art. 6 is then needed. For a business it will almost always be legitimate interests under GDPR Art. 6(1)(f), and the balancing test becomes demanding when the people being filmed neither know about it nor can avoid it.

Facial recognition is a step further. Biometric data processed for the purpose of uniquely identifying a person is a special category under GDPR Art. 9(1). The processing is prohibited unless an exception in Article 9(2) applies, and for strangers in the street or in a shop, explicit consent is in practice the only realistic option. Passers-by will not give it.

The glasses are legal. What decides whether the use is legal is the recordings and what the AI does with them.

What does the EDPB say about AI smart glasses?

The European Data Protection Board (EDPB) adopted a statement on smart glasses (Statement 1/2026) on 13 October 2026. The statement sets out the Board’s preliminary views and is not binding, but it shows how the supervisory authorities in the EDPB understand the GDPR in this area. Datatilsynet takes part in the EDPB, but without voting rights. According to the statement, the wearer is not covered by the GDPR as long as the use is purely personal and takes place outside any professional or commercial context, for example when an image is shared only with a family member or a friend, or when the glasses are used for translation in a private setting (para. 13). The exemption is to be interpreted narrowly and assessed case by case. It does not apply when images or video are shared with an indefinite number of people on an open social media account, or when the glasses are used in public, professional, political or other non-personal activities. In such cases the wearer is a controller, alone or jointly with others, and must comply with all the obligations in the GDPR, in particular the transparency requirement (para. 14).

The manufacturer and the provider of associated apps and AI services are covered by the GDPR even when the wearer falls within the household exemption (para. 16, read with Recital 18). They are controllers or joint controllers when they determine the purposes and means of the processing, typically when the AI function analyses an image from the camera in which other people appear (para. 17). According to the statement, they cannot rely on the wearer’s actions to fulfil their own obligations, for example the obligation to inform other people affected (para. 18). If the manufacturer or provider uses the recordings for a new purpose, that purpose must be compatible with the original one under GDPR Art. 6(4), and particular weight is to be given to the context in which the data were collected where the data subjects have no relationship with the controller (para. 19). The EDPB considers that legitimate interests will be particularly difficult to demonstrate for commercial reuse beyond the service requested by the wearer, and for AI training (para. 30).

According to the statement, the transparency requirement is the greatest challenge. Traditional privacy notices do not reach the people being filmed, and the EDPB recommends that manufacturers combine several mechanisms which by default give notice at the moment the processing takes place (paras. 23 and 24). The indicator should be impossible or difficult to switch off and easy to notice in practice. A light should be visible in different lighting conditions, and it should not be possible to record when the light is covered. Audio signals, a requirement of voice commands, notifications to nearby phones and a design that distinguishes smart glasses from ordinary glasses are also mentioned, but phone notifications cannot be the only measure. Where transparency relies on technical measures, those measures must be effective, impossible or difficult to circumvent and updated as necessary (para. 25).

The statement is also relevant for businesses that only use the glasses. A business that lets employees use AI glasses in their work is a controller under para. 14. In our view the business cannot assume that the light on the glasses alone fulfils the duty to inform, because the EDPB itself points out that current indicators leave many people unaware that data about them is being processed (para. 22). The EDPB also recommends data minimisation, among other things by limiting continuous recording, live streaming and retention periods, and states that continuous recording of others cannot be justified solely by a general concern for one’s own safety (para. 33). Together with the statement, the EDPB published the report «The connected gaze» on smart glasses, surveillance and evidence. The report was written by an external expert under the EDPB’s Support Pool of Experts programme and does not express the EDPB’s position.

Can an employer let staff use AI smart glasses at work?

Yes, but only after a specific assessment, and as a rule not in client meetings. When an employer equips staff with AI glasses, the business is the controller for the recordings of customers, colleagues and passers-by.

Recording employees is a control measure under the Working Environment Act (arbeidsmiljøloven). It requires an objective reason based on the circumstances of the business and must not place a disproportionate burden on the employees, under Working Environment Act § 9-1. The employer must discuss the measure with the employee representatives as early as possible, inform the employees before it is introduced and evaluate it regularly, under Working Environment Act § 9-2. This also applies when the real purpose is documenting the work, for example for a service technician or a security guard.

The special rules on camera surveillance are a poor fit. Both the Regulations on camera surveillance in businesses and the definition in Personal Data Act § 31 presuppose a fixed camera, and § 31 in reality governs dummy surveillance equipment and signage. AI glasses are therefore probably not camera surveillance in the legal sense. That makes the use less regulated on paper, but no less risky. The assessment is made under the GDPR and Chapter 9 of the Working Environment Act, without the regulations’ fixed rules on signage and deletion to lean on.

Employees’ own glasses are a simpler question. Under the right to manage, the employer can prohibit or restrict their use during working hours, as the government has encouraged. See also the AI policy for employees, where smart glasses deserve a separate item.

What applies to shops that encounter or sell AI smart glasses?

A shop can ban customers from using AI glasses on its premises. The owner sets the conditions of entry, and such a ban is no different from a ban on photography. It should be signposted at the entrance. The announced ban covers shopping centres, so many shops will be affected regardless.

One consideration is easy to overlook. Some visually impaired people use the glasses as an aid, to have text read out and their surroundings described. A blanket ban with no exception may then be caught by the Equality and Anti-Discrimination Act (likestillings- og diskrimineringsloven). It is unclear whether the government’s proposal will include such an exception.

Selling the glasses is lawful. Even so, on 6 October the Norwegian Consumer Council asked the retail chains to stop selling them until it has been clarified whether the glasses are legal. Shops that carry on should tell customers clearly that use may become restricted, and should not market features such as facial recognition of other people.

What does the AI Act say about AI smart glasses?

Less than many think, and so far nothing in Norway. The AI Act has not been incorporated into the EEA Agreement, and the government aims to present a Norwegian AI Act to the Norwegian Parliament in spring 2027.

In the EU the prohibitions in Article 5 have applied since 2 February 2025. The ban on real-time remote biometric identification in publicly accessible spaces in AI Act Art. 5(1)(h) applies only to use by law enforcement. A private individual or a shop using glasses with facial recognition is not caught by that provision. Remote biometric identification systems are, however, high-risk under Annex III point 1, with strict requirements. For employers, AI Act Art. 5(1)(f) is more to the point. It prohibits AI that infers employees’ emotions in the workplace, with exceptions for medical and safety reasons. Read more on the artificial intelligence topic page.

Do AI smart glasses in the business require a DPIA?

Usually, yes. A data protection impact assessment is required where the processing is likely to result in a high risk, under GDPR Art. 35(1). AI glasses combine new technology, recording of people who do not know about it, possible processing of employee data and transfer to the supplier’s cloud service. Datatilsynet’s list requires a DPIA among other things for biometric identification combined with at least one other criterion. The method is the same as in the DPIA for AI tools, and the basic rules are covered on the data protection topic page.

What should businesses do about AI smart glasses now?

1. Decide whether AI glasses are allowed on the premises, for employees and for visitors, and put it in the house rules or the AI policy.
2. Put up signs at the entrance if use is to be restricted, and make an exception for customers and employees who use the glasses as a visual aid.
3. Switch off facial recognition and automatic upload on glasses the business owns.
4. Discuss the use with employee representatives before staff start wearing glasses that film colleagues or customers, and carry out a DPIA first.
5. Review the supplier’s terms on storage, AI training and transfer of recordings outside the EEA, and enter into a data processing agreement where needed.
6. Check that glasses owned by the business have a recording indicator that cannot be covered or switched off, as the EDPB recommends, and also provide information on site where the glasses are used.
7. Appoint one person to follow the bill on the temporary ban and to update the rules in the same week it is put forward.

Questions and answers

Next legal review: 15 November 2026