META PLATFORMS AND LUXOTTICA SUED IN CALIFORNIA OVER RAY-BAN META AI GLASSES DATA HANDLING PRACTICES

A proposed class action was filed March 4, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (Case No. 3:26-cv-01897) against Meta Platforms, Inc. and Luxottica of America, Inc. Plaintiffs Gina Bartone of New Jersey and Mateo Canu of California allege that marketing claims for Ray-Ban Meta smart glasses overstated privacy protections while footage from the devices was routed to human reviewers overseas.

The complaint covers purchasers of eight specific models: Ray-Ban Meta Gen 1 (Skyler and Headliner), Ray-Ban Meta Gen 2 (Wayfarer, Skyler, and Headliner), Oakley Meta HSTN, Oakley Meta Vanguard, and Meta Ray-Ban Display (Wayfarer). It defines a nationwide class of all U.S. buyers and subclasses for California and New Jersey purchasers. Exclusions include the defendants, their affiliates, governments, and judicial personnel.

According to the filing, Meta partnered with EssilorLuxottica (via Luxottica) in 2021 to launch the devices. Marketing materials stated the glasses were “designed for privacy, controlled by you” and “built for your privacy,” with promises of user control and removal of identifiable information. An April 2025 privacy policy update made certain AI features always-on. Reports published February 27, 2026, described data annotators in Kenya viewing raw footage that included users changing clothes, using bathrooms, and engaging in sexual activity. The plaintiffs claim Meta’s face anonymization process failed to prevent identification and that these practices were not disclosed to buyers.

The complaint lists ten causes of action:

• California Unfair Competition Law (Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200 et seq.)
• California False Advertising Law (Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17500 et seq.)
• California Consumers Legal Remedies Act (Civ. Code §§ 1750 et seq.)
• New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (N.J. Stat. §§ 56:8-1 et seq.)
• Fraud by misrepresentation
• Fraud by concealment/omission
• Negligent misrepresentation
• Breach of contract
• Breach of implied warranty of merchantability
• Quasi-contract/unjust enrichment

Relief sought includes class certification, appointment of named plaintiffs and counsel, declaratory judgment, injunctive relief requiring changes to marketing and data practices, restitution, disgorgement, compensatory and punitive damages, statutory penalties, attorneys’ fees, costs, and interest.

The document references Meta’s product page, a May 2025 OpenTools report on the privacy policy update, a February 2026 Svenska Dagbladet article quoting annotators, and an October 2025 arXiv paper on AI training data economics.

Meta has not yet responded publicly to the filing. The case remains in its earliest stage; no hearing dates or motions have been set. Investors tracking Meta (NASDAQ: META) should monitor docket entries for any motion to dismiss, settlement discussions, or class certification rulings, as the outcome could influence disclosure obligations and operating costs in the consumer hardware segment.