A Delhi man has issued a legal notice to Meta Platforms and an Instagram creator over the alleged covert recording and publication of his interaction at a Khan Market café using camera-equipped Ray-Ban Meta smart glasses, raising fresh questions over privacy, platform accountability and the design of wearable recording devices.
The notice, issued on 24 August 2026 by advocate Apar Gupta on behalf of the man, identified as Mr X, demands removal of the video, disclosure and preservation of evidence, an unconditional apology and ₹2.05 crore in damages.
"Acting pro-bono, we are putting META on notice for its creepy AI smart glasses that lead to secret recordings, privacy violations and disparagement," the Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF) said.
According to the legal notice, Mr X was sitting alone at a café in Khan Market, New Delhi, at around 8.15pm on 24 July 2026, when a stranger allegedly approached him and began pestering, insulting and harassing him with unsolicited questions and remarks.
The notice alleges that the stranger followed Mr X within the café, prompting him to complain to staff and eventually move to another seating area.
Mr X was allegedly unaware that the encounter was being recorded using camera-equipped Ray-Ban Meta smart glasses. The notice further alleges that one or more associates of the Instagram creator recorded the interaction from other vantage points without Mr X's knowledge or consent.
The footage was subsequently uploaded as an Instagram Reel on 26 July 2026. According to the notice, it had crossed 309,000 views by 4th August and 419,000 views by 6 August 2026, along with around 15,700 likes and more than 500 comments.
The notice says many comments mocked and ridiculed Mr X, including 'RIP' and 'Rest in peace', allegedly causing ongoing humiliation, distress and reputational harm.
Mr X attempted to report the video and the Instagram account through the platform's in-app reporting mechanism. However, according to the legal notice, the reporting menu did not provide a specific category for privacy violations or non-consensual recording.
He, therefore, selected the closest available option relating to bullying or harassment. Instagram subsequently informed him that it had reviewed the reports and determined that the material did not violate its community standards.
A subsequent request for review was also rejected in similar terms, according to the notice.
Mr X also submitted a complaint to Meta's grievance officer for India under the category relating to privacy violations and sharing personal information or representation without consent. The notice states that he has received neither an acknowledgement nor a decision on that complaint.
The Instagram account was subsequently deactivated or became inaccessible around 9th August, according to the notice, but was reactivated by 16th August with the disputed video still available. The video remained online when the legal notice was issued.
The legal action goes beyond the alleged failures of Instagram's content moderation and grievance mechanisms and directly questions Meta's responsibility as the manufacturer and marketer of the Ray-Ban Meta smart glasses.
The notice argues that the glasses are designed to resemble ordinary eyewear, with a small recording indicator providing the principal visual signal that recording is taking place. It alleges that the indicator is inadequate and can be easily overlooked by people nearby.
The notice consequently raises a product-liability and negligence question as to whether a manufacturer can be held responsible when a device's design allegedly makes covert recording easier and facilitates foreseeable harm to bystanders.
The notice maintains that Meta owed Mr X a duty of care and that any liability arising from the design and marketing of the physical product would be independent of Meta's role as an intermediary.
IFF has also pointed to broader concerns about privacy and wearable cameras, particularly whether recording indicators on smart glasses provide meaningful notice to people in the vicinity.
Meta has previously said that Ray-Ban Meta glasses include privacy safeguards. In a response concerning another India-related allegation, the company said the glasses have a capture LED that blinks when a photograph or video is taken and that the LED cannot be switched off. Meta also said the camera is disabled if the indicator is covered or damaged.
The legal notice also focuses on the scale and nature of the Instagram account involved in the incident. It states that the account had around 225,000 followers and had received a Meta Verified badge in December 2025.
According to the notice, the account's content predominantly consists of videos in which strangers are allegedly accosted, insulted or harassed in public places while being covertly recorded using smart glasses.
The notice further alleges that the account is monetised and that the creator receives payouts, while Meta benefits from advertising and user engagement generated by such content. These allegations have not been adjudicated by a court.
The notice has given the recipients seven days to comply with its demands, including taking down the disputed video and preventing its further publication, disclosing platforms and individuals to whom the footage was transmitted, identifying associates who allegedly recorded Mr X and publishing an unconditional apology.
It also demands preservation of the video, its metadata, account information and engagement data, along with information relating to the recording device and its connection with the relevant Meta AI account.
The notice seeks ₹2.05 crore in damages from the recipients.
The case highlights a growing privacy challenge created by camera-equipped wearable devices. Unlike smartphones and conventional cameras, smart glasses can record while appearing to be ordinary eyewear, potentially making it difficult for people nearby to know when they are being filmed.
It also raises questions about what responsibility social media platforms have when allegedly non-consensual recordings are uploaded and transformed into widely viewed entertainment or 'content'.
IFF said it is providing pro-bono legal assistance to Mr X as part of its strategic litigation work defending the right to privacy. The organisation has not publicly linked to the disputed video or identified the individual, citing concerns that doing so could cause further harm.
The legal notice does not by itself establish liability against Meta or the Instagram creator. The allegations and claims would have to be contested and determined through the appropriate legal process.
The case could nevertheless become an important test of how Indian law deals with privacy harms involving emerging technologies, particularly where the alleged harm involves the combined actions of an individual recording a person, a platform distributing the footage and a technology manufacturer whose device enabled the recording.
At its core, the dispute asks whether a person in a public place can be covertly recorded, turned into viral social-media content and subjected to public ridicule without meaningful avenues for privacy protection—and where responsibility should lie when that happens.
