German digital rights organisation HateAid has filed a criminal complaint against Meta, Ray-Ban, Oakley and several eyewear retailers, calling for a ban on the sale of Meta’s AI-powered smart glasses in Germany over concerns about privacy, surveillance and digital abuse.

The complaint was submitted to Germany’s Central Office for Combating Internet Crime and targets the Ray-Ban Meta Wayfarer. HateAid argues that the glasses could violate Germany’s Telecommunications, Digital Services and Data Protection Act.

The organisation says the devices are difficult to distinguish from conventional eyewear, raising concerns that people may be recorded without realising it. Around 41 million people in Germany wear glasses, according to the group, which argues that the technology could make covert recording more difficult to detect.

HateAid describes the glasses as a form of surveillance technology disguised as an ordinary consumer product. It says the devices could contribute to image-based digital abuse by allowing photographs and videos to be captured in everyday situations.

The complaint also highlights differences between Germany and other European countries over photography in public spaces. German rules generally place stronger restrictions on photographing or filming identifiable individuals without their consent, although photography of public events and wider scenes is permitted.

In several other European countries, taking photographs or videos of people in public places is generally allowed, provided the material is not used for harmful, commercial or vigilante purposes. HateAid’s action therefore raises questions about how smart glasses should be regulated across the European Union, where data protection rules have often been applied differently at national level.

Alongside the criminal complaint, HateAid has launched a petition calling for the sale of Ray-Ban Meta AI glasses to be stopped in Germany. The group also wants manufacturers to adopt stronger safety measures so that cameras on smart glasses are clearly visible.

One proposal is to use distinctive colours or other markings to identify devices equipped with cameras. The glasses already contain a white LED that flashes while the camera is being used to take photographs or record video.

HateAid argues that people affected by recordings should also have clearer ways to protect their rights and seek help. The organisation connects the issue to wider concerns about digital violence, particularly violence targeting women.

It points to the growing use of artificial intelligence and deepfakes as additional threats to privacy and personal security. However, many of the problems surrounding online abuse existed before smart glasses became widely available.

Figures cited by the group show significant levels of violence and harassment against women in Germany. About 30% of women report experiencing psychological violence from a partner, while 32% say they have faced sexual harassment at work and 14% report stalking.

A 2025 Economist Intelligence Unit report found that only one in four women report online abuse. Just 14% report such incidents to law enforcement, while 78% are unaware of available options for responding to online harassment, doxing and impersonation.

HateAid’s campaign therefore places smart glasses within a broader debate over privacy, digital safety and the ability of authorities to protect people from technology-enabled abuse.

Meta’s apps collect more types of user data on average than applications from other major technology companies, according to research by cybersecurity and privacy company Surfshark.

The study analysed 171 apps available through Apple’s App Store that were developed by Meta, Google, Microsoft, Apple and Amazon. Researchers examined the types of information identified in each app’s privacy disclosures across 35 data categories.

Meta ranked highest, with its apps collecting an average of 25 out of 35 possible data types. Surfshark said this was more than three times the average recorded for some other major technology companies.

The categories examined included information such as browsing history, precise location, purchase details and other personal data that applications can collect or associate with users.

Seven of the apps identified among the most data-intensive were owned by Meta. They included Facebook, Messenger and Meta AI, as well as Meta Horizon, Meta Ads Manager, Meta Business Suite and Forum.

The findings put Meta well ahead of the other companies included in the analysis.

Google apps collected an average of 17 data types, according to Surfshark, while Amazon collected 12. Microsoft averaged eight types and Apple seven.

The research focuses on the number of data categories associated with each application rather than the volume of individual records collected from users. It also reflects information disclosed by developers through App Store privacy labels, which can vary according to how companies classify and report their data practices.

Meta operates some of the world’s most widely used digital platforms, including Facebook, Instagram, Messenger and WhatsApp. Its services rely heavily on advertising and personalised experiences, making user information an important part of its business model.

The findings are likely to renew questions about how much personal information consumers share when using popular social media and technology services.

Privacy concerns have increased as technology companies expand their use of artificial intelligence, targeted advertising and personalised recommendations. AI-powered applications can require access to additional information depending on their features and how users interact with them.

Surfshark’s analysis does not by itself establish whether any company has violated privacy laws or whether the data collected is used improperly. The number of data categories listed by an app also does not necessarily indicate how much information a particular user contributes.

However, the research highlights the differences in data collection practices among major technology companies.

The findings could encourage users to review application privacy settings and the information requested by apps before installing or continuing to use them.

As regulators and consumers place greater scrutiny on digital privacy, technology companies face increasing pressure to explain clearly what information they collect, why it is needed and how long it is retained.