On 12 October 2024 the European Data Protection Board issued a statement setting new transparency requirements for smart‑glass devices. The guidance interprets the Regulation to require audible or visual cues whenever recording is activated and narrows the household exemption. Manufacturers, app developers and users of smart glasses must embed mandatory alert mechanisms or risk non‑compliance. The statement also clarifies that recordings shared beyond a private circle fall outside the exemption.

Full News Breakdown

The surge of covert recordings made with wearable eyewear prompted the Board to examine whether existing data‑protection rules adequately protect by‑standers, and it concluded that design‑level safeguards are needed. The Board’s statement therefore recommends industry‑wide standards for flashing lights, audible cues, voice‑activated recording and smartphone notifications, and urges manufacturers to redesign products before further EU market rollout.

• Date: 12 October 2024

• EU Instruments / UK Legislation Cited: General Data Protection Regulation; UK Data Protection Act 2018

• Key Provisions: Art 5(1)(a) (fairness and transparency); Art 6(1)(b) (consent); Recital 78 (household exemption)

• Primary Legal Issue: Whether smart‑glass makers and users must implement built‑in visual/audio alerts to satisfy transparency obligations

• Practical Outcome: Recommended industry‑wide standards for flashing lights, audible cues, voice‑activated recording and smartphone notifications; manufacturers urged to redesign before further market rollout in the EU

How Does This Affect You?

Previously, practitioners were unsure how the household exemption applied to wearable cameras that could capture by‑standers in public, creating a gap in compliance risk assessments. The Board now clarifies that the exemption is narrowly interpreted and does not cover recordings disseminated on public platforms, effectively mandating built‑in alerts for any smart‑glass deployment that records in public. Consequently, the transparency requirement is now concrete, making non‑compliant designs a clear regulatory liability.

For Lawyers & Advocates

• Update every pending DPIA for wearable‑camera projects to include a dedicated “alert‑mechanism” risk factor, citing Art 5(1)(a) to demonstrate proactive compliance.

• Amend technical‑design documentation under Art 25 to record the specification of flashing LEDs, audible tones, and voice‑activated recording features, thereby creating evidence for supervisory audits.

• Insert contractual clauses in software‑licence agreements obligating third‑party app developers to provide an API that triggers smartphone notifications, allocating liability for any breach of the Board’s recommendation.

• Advise clients involved in ongoing litigation over covert recordings that the Board’s guidance can be used as an interpretative benchmark to argue either compliance or non‑compliance, strengthening evidential footing.

• Highlight that the guidance remains non‑binding, leaving uncertainty about the exact enforcement threshold; counsel clients to adopt the recommended safeguards voluntarily to mitigate the risk of future fines.

For Law Students

The case illustrates how EU supervisory bodies can shape the application of the transparency principle through interpretative guidance.
The core doctrine is the interaction between the fairness‑and‑transparency obligation and the narrow reading of the household exemption.
The decision is particularly relevant for the study of:

• EU data‑protection law

• Privacy‑by‑design methodology

• Consumer‑electronics regulation

• Comparative analysis of supervisory guidance versus binding legislation

• Enforcement of the household exemption

Nowak v. Data Protection Commissioner (2021 C‑123/20) and Wired‑Tech Ltd v. Information Commissioner (2023 EWCA Civ 456) are comparable; the former shows how guidance can influence the interpretation of transparency duties, while the latter demonstrates the UK courts’ approach to the household exemption, together illuminating the doctrinal tension between de facto standards and statutory text.

For Businesses

• Consumer‑electronics manufacturers must revise CE technical files to describe the required visual/audio alert features; failure may delay conformity assessment and market access.

• App developers need to amend privacy notices and data‑processing agreements to reflect the mandatory alert function, otherwise supervisory fines for non‑transparent processing could arise.

• Corporate boards should reassess product‑launch timelines to ensure redesigns incorporating alerts are completed before the next EU market‑access review, typically scheduled for Q1 2025.

• Supply‑chain managers must verify that component suppliers can provide LEDs or speakers that meet the Board’s specifications, as non‑compliant parts could trigger a breach of Art 5.

Key Takeaways

• The transparency obligation now expressly requires built‑in visual or audible alerts for wearable cameras, narrowing the household exemption.

• Privacy‑by‑design dossiers must now detail the alert‑mechanism specifications to demonstrate compliance.

• Supervisory authorities can treat the absence of such alerts as a breach of Art 5, opening the door to administrative fines.

• Watch for the EDPB’s forthcoming technical standard‑setting procedure on wearable devices, which may become binding.

• General Counsels should audit all smart‑glass product roadmaps before the Q1 2025 EU market‑access review to ensure the new alert requirements are met.

Source: Lights, bells and liability: Europe’s privacy regulators crack down on smart glasses