Who is named in the file?
In the criminal complaint it filed with the general prosecutor's office in Frankfurt am Main, HateAid names the management of Meta Platforms Technologies Ireland, the Ray-Ban and Oakley brands, and the retailers Fielmann, Apollo-Optik, Mister Spex and MediaMarkt together. The basis is section 8 of the German telecommunications and digital services data protection act, the TDDDG: putting on the market a device disguised as an everyday object and intended to film or listen to people unnoticed is prohibited. The product at issue is a single model, the Ray-Ban Meta Smart Glasses Wayfarer Gen 2.[1]
Section 27, paragraph 1, number 3 of the same act provides for a fine, or a prison sentence of up to two years, together with confiscation of the profits already made, in the event of a conviction. That shows the weight of the file while saying nothing about its outcome. A criminal complaint is the document that opens an examination at the prosecutor's office, and HateAid's statement reports no prosecutorial decision. What is in hand today as evidence is the account of the party that filed.[1]
What does the statute make decisive?
The section turns on how the device looks; the prohibition is built directly on disguise. That moves the argument to a point earlier than where the data goes, namely product design. The decisive question becomes whether a person facing the camera can tell from the glasses themselves that it is running. The opposite reading stays open. The prosecutor may find that a visible recording light, and marketing that plainly describes a camera, is enough to remove the disguise element.[1]
What HateAid asks for follows from that question: withdrawal of the Wayfarer Gen 2 from sale, and design rules that would make recording visible to bystanders through an indicator that cannot be switched off. The second demand is the more measurable of the two. When the indicator lights, how bright it is and whether it can be covered are all things that can be written down and tested.[1]
The same glasses, a different chain
The same product family appeared in another context a day earlier. Gizmodo, drawing on documents released under Florida's Sunshine laws, wrote that at least two sheriff's offices have bought Ray-Ban Meta AI glasses. The Broward County Sheriff's Office bought them for its undercover Internet Crimes Against Children unit and declined to say more, citing its policy on surveillance techniques, while the Okeechobee County Sheriff's Office said its six pairs are used for remote troubleshooting on the IT side.[2]
A shared constraint links the two developments: in both, what matters is whether the person being recorded can tell from the device itself. The file in Frankfurt builds that into an element of an offence, while the Broward purchase treats going unnoticed as a working feature for an undercover unit. Pulling the same indicator in two directions turns the design into a question that can be tested. If no prosecutorial decision is published by 31 December 2026, the complaint stays an allegation about the device's design. The signal to watch is plain: a published decision by the Frankfurt prosecutor to open or decline an investigation, or a documented change to the Wayfarer Gen 2's recording indicator.[1], [2]