Meta Faces Blanket Ban in the UK and another $ 1.4 Trillion lawsuit in California

Meta Platforms is facing severe regulatory and legal scrutiny on two fronts, as judicial authorities target its wearable hardware while state prosecutors challenge its core social media business.

His Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) has issued a nationwide policy banning Meta smart glasses from all court buildings across England and Wales. Based on these new guidelines, security personnel will confiscate the devices upon entry, returning them only when the owner exits the premises.

The policy targets wearable technology equipped with cameras and microphones, most especially the popular Ray-Ban Meta glasses, owing to concerns surrounding illicit filming, covert recording, and witness tampering.

Under UK law, taking unauthorized photographs or videos inside courtrooms and tribunal facilities is strictly prohibited and carries penalties for contempt of court. While smartphones are permitted provided they remain stowed and are not used for recording, HMCTS concluded that smart glasses present an unacceptable risk due to their hands-free, hands-off design.

"There are clear restrictions on taking images or videos within courts and tribunals, which is why the use of Meta glasses is prohibited."

— HMCTS Spokesperson

Unlike a smartphone, where lifting the device to film is obvious glasses allow wearers to capture audio and high-definition video simply by looking at a target or giving it voice controls.

The ban comes after several high-profile incidents, isolated incidents have highlighted the vulnerabilities created by wearable technology in judicial proceedings and not just in England, but across the globe.

Earlier this year, High Court judge Raquel Agnello KC ordered claimant Laimonas Jakštys to remove smart glasses during cross-examination. The court noted suspicions that he was receiving live assistance or coaching through the device's built-in audio speakers.

New York’s court system introduced a total ban on smart glasses, and a California judge threatened security personnel for Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg with contempt of court when they wore the glasses inside a courtroom during his recent trial.

The judiciary’s crackdown reflects a growing societal pushback against consumer surveillance tech. Major U.K. chains, including pub operator JD Wetherspoon, along with various theaters and restaurants, have banned smart glasses over privacy concerns. Employment lawyers have also been urging City of London businesses to update non-disclosure and workplace privacy policies to tackle risks of confidential corporate data being discreetly captured or leaked to social media.

Meta insists that its devices incorporate privacy protections, including an LED recording indicator that flashes when the camera is active and tamper-detection systems that stop recording if the light is covered. However, legal authorities concluded that a physical security check at court entrances remains the only reliable safeguard to protect trials, witnesses, and jurors. As of yet, no further laws have been enacted concerning private enterprises and the wider public.

Simultaneously, a landmark trial underway in Oakland, California federal courtroom pits Meta Platforms against a coalition of U.S. states accusing the company of deliberately designing its platforms to addict children and teens.

The stakes could not be higher right now as state prosecutors are pressing for statutory penalties and damages that could reach a staggering $1.4 trillion while Meta’s entire market valuation stands at roughly $1.5 trillion. Meta’s defense attorneys have been pushing back fiercely against the calculations of the estimated damage figures.

Four states (California, Colorado, Kentucky, and New Jersey) are leading the charge on behalf of a broader coalition of state attorneys general representing tens of millions of young users.Meta is accused of engineering features such as infinite scrolling, push notifications, and algorithmic recommendations specifically to exploit adolescent brain development for profit, while publicly downplaying the known mental health risks.

Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg and Instagram head Adam Mosseri are both slated to take the stand during the multi-week trial presided over by U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers.

The trial follows recent courtroom blows for Meta, including a $567 million judgment in New Mexico and combined damages nearing $1 billion from earlier trials.

Legal analysts are drawing direct comparisons between this litigation and the historic Master Settlement Agreement of 1998, which fundamentally altered how tobacco companies were allowed to market cigarettes to minors.

"It really feels like tobacco in the 1990s," said Vincent Joralemon, director at Berkeley’s Life Sciences Law and Policy Center.

"While these cases revolve around technology and addiction, the legal argument against Meta centers on its business practices specifically the gap between what Meta knew internally and what it disclosed publicly."

Just as 1990s investigators uncovered internal tobacco memos showing that companies targeted minors with icons like "Joe Camel," prosecutors in this trial aim to leverage internal Meta documents uncovering whistleblower revelations by Frances Haugen to show that executives were aware that Instagram exacerbated body image issues and depression among young girls.