Smart glasses in the workplace: what South Australian businesses need to know.

Smart glasses are becoming mainstream. What was recently novelty technology can now look remarkably similar to an ordinary pair of glasses while incorporating a camera, microphone and increasingly sophisticated AI functionality.

For businesses, this creates a practical issue which is easy to underestimate. An employee, customer, contractor or visitor can potentially enter a workplace and record a meeting, conversation, confidential document or interaction without the recording device being nearly as obvious as a phone held in someone’s hand.

South Australia already has laws regulating this conduct. The main legislation is the Surveillance Devices Act 2016 (SA), which regulates the use of listening devices and optical surveillance devices. Smart glasses capable of recording video are likely to fall within the definition of an optical surveillance device and, where they record sound, may also constitute a listening device.

The technology might be new, but the existing surveillance laws are broad enough to create real issues for businesses using it.

Wearing smart glasses and recording with them are different things

There is no general prohibition in South Australia against owning or wearing smart glasses. The legal issue generally arises when their recording functions are used.

Under the Surveillance Devices Act, a person generally cannot knowingly use an optical surveillance device to record or observe a private activity without the express or implied consent of each person participating in that activity, unless an exception applies.

Audio recording is separately regulated. A person participating in a private conversation generally cannot record that conversation without the express or implied consent of the principal parties, unless an exception applies.

This distinction is particularly important with smart glasses because the same device may be recording video and audio simultaneously.

The maximum penalties for unlawful use of a listening device or optical surveillance device are significant. For an individual, the maximum penalty is $15,000 or 3 years imprisonment. For a body corporate, the maximum fine is $75,000.

There are statutory exceptions, including in certain circumstances where recording is reasonably necessary to protect lawful interests or is in the public interest. These exceptions are fact dependent and should not be treated as a general entitlement to record a meeting or conversation simply because having a recording might later be useful.

Public places do not necessarily mean everything can be recorded

For visual recording, an activity carried on in a public place is excluded from the definition of a private activity under the Surveillance Devices Act. This means that someone using smart glasses while walking through a public place will not generally breach the private activity provisions merely because other people appear in the video.

Audio creates a different issue.

A private conversation can still occur in a public place. People sitting at a restaurant, attending an event or speaking in a public area may still be having a conversation which they reasonably expect to be heard only by themselves.

Smart glasses can therefore create the unusual situation where the video being captured is not prohibited by the private activity provisions, but the accompanying audio may be subject to restrictions concerning private conversations.

For businesses, this means that a simple policy based on whether someone is in a “public” or “private” area is unlikely to be enough.

The bigger issue is what happens inside a business

The more significant risk is not necessarily someone wearing smart glasses while walking down the street. It is what happens when that person walks into a workplace.

Consider an employee wearing smart glasses throughout an ordinary working day. During that day they might:

• attend an internal management meeting;
• meet with a client or supplier;
• participate in a performance or disciplinary discussion;
• walk through another business’s premises;
• review documents containing personal or commercially sensitive information;
• discuss pricing, customers, strategy or a proposed transaction;
• visit a warehouse, workshop or other operational area; and
• use an AI function connected to the glasses to analyse, transcribe or summarise what they have seen or heard.

If the device is recording, the employee may be capturing private conversations and private activities throughout the day.

The problem is compounded by the fact that other people may not know when recording is taking place.

If somebody puts a phone on a meeting room table and starts recording, the act of recording is usually apparent. Smart glasses fundamentally change that dynamic. A person may know that someone is wearing smart glasses without knowing whether the camera or microphone is operating.

That makes consent much more difficult to manage in practice.

Recording is only the first issue

Businesses also need to think beyond whether the original recording was lawful.

The Surveillance Devices Act separately regulates the use, communication and publication of information obtained through surveillance devices. The particular restrictions depend upon the circumstances in which the recording was obtained.

This means that permission to make a recording does not necessarily amount to unrestricted permission to do whatever the person wants with it afterwards.

For modern businesses, this is particularly important because recordings are increasingly likely to leave the device on which they were created.

A recording might be:

• uploaded to cloud storage;
• sent to another employee;
• provided to a client or third party;
• posted online;
• automatically transcribed;
• processed by an AI platform; or
• retained by a technology provider as part of its service.

Each additional step can create issues beyond the original act of recording.

Businesses should therefore understand not only whether smart glasses are being used, but what happens to the information they collect.

Confidential information creates another layer of risk

Surveillance legislation is only part of the picture.

Imagine an employee wearing smart glasses during a confidential acquisition meeting. The glasses capture the discussion, financial information displayed on a screen and documents sitting on the table. The recording is then processed through an external AI service.

The business may now have to consider surveillance law, confidentiality obligations, contractual restrictions, privacy obligations, data security and potentially the terms governing the external AI service.

Similar issues can arise with customer information, employee information, trade secrets, pricing information, intellectual property and legally privileged material.

The risk is therefore much broader than whether pressing “record” was technically lawful.

Some workplaces carry greater risks than others

There are also separate offences under the Summary Offences Act 1953 (SA) relating to matters including indecent filming, humiliating or degrading filming and the distribution of invasive images.

For most ordinary offices these provisions are unlikely to be the primary issue. They become considerably more important in environments where people may undress or otherwise have heightened expectations of privacy.

Gyms, medical and allied health practices, beauty and personal care businesses, sporting facilities, accommodation providers, licensed venues and businesses with bathrooms or change rooms should be particularly conscious of this risk.

For these businesses, allowing wearable recording technology throughout the premises without clear restrictions may create risks which are very different from allowing the same device in an ordinary reception area.

Privacy law also needs to be considered

Since 10 June 2025, Australian law has also included a statutory cause of action for serious invasions of privacy.

The cause of action is subject to significant requirements and will not apply every time someone is recorded without their knowledge. However, it creates another potential source of liability where there has been an intentional or reckless serious invasion of a person’s privacy and the other statutory requirements are satisfied.

Businesses covered by the Australian Privacy Principles may also have obligations concerning the collection, storage, use and disclosure of personal information captured through recording technology.

Again, the issue becomes particularly important where recordings are stored, transferred or processed by third party technology providers.

What should businesses actually do?

I do not think the practical response is necessarily to ban smart glasses.

The technology has legitimate applications, including accessibility benefits and potentially useful commercial applications. Businesses should instead decide how the technology can and cannot be used before an issue arises.

At a minimum, businesses should consider:

• whether existing workplace policies actually cover smart glasses and other wearable recording devices;
• whether employees are permitted to record meetings and, if so, in what circumstances;
• how consent to recording is obtained and documented;
• whether recording functionality must be disabled during confidential meetings;
• whether smart glasses should be prohibited in particular areas of the business;
• what rules apply to clients, contractors and visitors wearing recording devices;
• where recordings are stored and who can access them;
• whether recordings can be uploaded to external AI, transcription or cloud platforms;
• whether confidential, personal or privileged information could be captured; and
• whether conditions of entry or confidentiality arrangements should be updated to deal expressly with wearable recording technology.

For businesses adopting the technology themselves, there is an additional question: what information is the device collecting, where does that information go and what happens to it after collection?

That should be understood before smart glasses are rolled out to employees, rather than after they have been used for months.

The practical issue

The law is not necessarily unprepared for smart glasses. South Australia’s surveillance legislation is broad enough to regulate many of the activities these devices make possible.

The bigger issue is that business practices have not necessarily caught up.

For years, businesses have operated on the assumption that a recording device is reasonably obvious. Someone takes out a phone, turns on a camera or places a recording device on a table.

Smart glasses challenge that assumption.

The important question for businesses is therefore not simply whether smart glasses are legal. It is whether the business knows when they can be used, when recording must stop, how consent will be managed and what happens to the information the glasses collect.

Those are questions worth answering before someone walks into the next client or management meeting wearing them.

Bird Law advises businesses on commercial, employment, privacy and risk issues associated with emerging technology. If your business is considering the use of smart glasses, AI enabled recording technology or reviewing its workplace recording policies, please contact our team.

General information only. This article does not constitute legal advice. The application of surveillance, privacy and other laws depends on the particular circumstances.

Christian Bird
Principal, Bird Law