A feature, or a claim?
In one August video, a creator with nearly half a million followers says he is filming the viewer without their knowledge because his glasses lack the “annoying blinking light.” He advises them not to spend $400 and points to a TikTok Shop listing. The post discloses that he may earn a commission if a viewer buys through the link.
The linked glasses cost about $40–100. Similar low-cost copies of Meta’s smart glasses appear on TikTok Shop, Amazon, Temu, Walmart and other platforms, often under little-known names that keep changing. Affiliate creators present them as cheaper alternatives to Meta’s products, which cost several hundred dollars and lead the market.
Some videos make the recording light the selling point. In others, creators say it is easy to cover with inexpensive stickers or included attachments.
That leaves a basic uncertainty: whether the glasses lack a working light, or whether the pitch is exaggerating what they can do. Some models shown in videos appear to have a component resembling an LED. LUSBY, the only seller contacted by reporters to respond, said its glasses have a recording indicator and that it does not promote them for filming people without their knowledge.
LUSBY also said it had no official TikTok Shop store, that the accounts shown to the company were not affiliated with it, and that it had neither authorized nor paid creators to promote its products. The company said sellers and accounts had used its name and promotional materials without permission.
The privacy pitch
The most troubling videos turn covert recording into a joke between partners. One couple, whose account features products promoted through TikTok Shop affiliate links, posted several videos about inexpensive smart glasses. In one, the woman pretends not to know that the man filmed her during sex.
“Wow, that was good, baby. And the video was good too,” he says. She appears to be fastening her pants and asks, “Video?” He replies, “Oh, you didn’t know?” She says there was no flash.
“Baby, these aren’t the $400 glasses,” he says, before listing features of the cheaper model.
Other creators make similar claims directly to camera. One August video says the creator is recording someone in a public place, then shows a light blocker. Another creator wrote in a comment that her glasses came with a sticker to cover the indicator. In an April video, a creator says TikTok’s AI glasses are no different from Meta’s; when asked whether the lights come on during recording, she says no, then adds that the package includes covers to hide them.
The glasses are often paired with the same app, HeyCyan, which promises to make “smart glasses truly smart.” The app was developed by Chinese company Shenzhen Qingcheng. The Australian government is currently examining it and seeking clarification about how the company handles user data.
A market built around the weak point
Smart glasses have struggled before: Google and Snapchat tried to make them popular starting in the 2010s, without success. Meta’s glasses, developed with Ray-Ban and Oakley, were the first to gain notable adoption. Prada, a major luxury fashion brand, is expected to join them soon.
That growth has brought privacy disputes with it. Critics have raised concerns about Meta’s handling of sensitive data and reports of facial-recognition features that were never released. Some owners have also secretly filmed people in public and private places. The resulting labels—“Ray-Ban Meta stalker” and the derogatory “perv glasses”—reflect how closely the product’s identity is now tied to misuse.
Meta has begun removing creators who post videos of harassment from its platforms and plans to release a version without a camera, though it will still be able to record audio. The company is also trying to stop users from modifying the recording indicator; a small market has emerged for people who convert the glasses to “stealth mode.”
I think the striking part is not that cheap glasses may have a weaker privacy safeguard. It is that creators can market defeating that safeguard as a benefit, while even the basic facts about who sells the glasses and how they work remain contested. Meta points to its blinking indicator as evidence that it takes privacy seriously, but that signal has little force if sellers and affiliates can turn its absence—or the promise of hiding it—into a reason to buy.
One March creator sums up the pitch while showing footage from a local gym, where several visitors are visible: “You don’t even know I’m filming. Stealth.” The glasses are “great for travel, content creation,” he says, and for “people who like sticking their nose in other people’s business.”
Daily AI news
Every day we pick what actually matters in AI and explain it plainly — no hype, no filler. Subscribe if you want to follow where the industry is going.
Only what matters — every day
Follow on X