As smart glasses become increasingly common, flooring businesses may need to rethink site conduct policies to protect client privacy, confidentiality and trust, says Claire Scanlan
NATIONAL pub chain J D Wetherspoon recently banned customers from using smart glasses across all 800-plus of its pubs and ATG Theatres asks audiences to remove them during performances.
In August 2026, His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service went further by banning Meta’s smart glasses from every court building in England and Wales, confiscating them at the door, only to be returned when the wearer leaves the building. There is no similar prohibition on mobiles or laptops, which can record audio and video, but quite obviously when doing so.
The reason these organisations have acted, with many more expected to follow suit, is worth thinking about for anyone whose work regularly puts staff inside someone else’s premises, whether that’s a client’s office, a hospital, a school or a private home.
Smart glasses look like an ordinary pair of glasses, yet can record video, capture audio and with some models, read text from documents or screens, without any overt sign that anything is happening apart from perhaps an easily covered LED lamp. A contractor measuring up, fitting, or on a site visit wearing a pair, whether they mean to or not, is in a position to record far more than the job in hand.
Where this actually bites for a
flooring business
For most contractors, the risk isn’t industrial espionage, but a simpler and more everyday problem than that. Staff on-site regularly pass through areas with confidential client information on display, financial paperwork on a desk, patient records in a healthcare setting, pupil information in a school, private conversations in someone’s home.
A staff member wearing smart glasses, even with no intention of recording anything, may find themselves unable to prove they didn’t, if a client later raises a concern. That’s an uncomfortable position for a business to be in and it’s avoidable with a clear policy rather than an assumption that common sense will cover it.
There’s also a client-facing side to this, as they themselves may wear the devices during a site visit or a sales meeting, and staff should know what’s expected of them if that happens, rather than working it out on the spot. A simple, sensible policy on wearable recording devices, covering the business’s own staff and setting out how to handle a client wearing a pair, protects both the business and the individual employee caught in an awkward moment.
What a workable policy actually needs to say
This doesn’t need to be complicated and although tempting, an outright ban isn’t necessary or realistic for most trades businesses. The situation needs clarity, with staff handbooks and site conduct guidance that specifically names wearable recording technology, rather than relying on older rules written around phones and cameras. Most people simply won’t think to apply a decade-old ‘no photography’ clause to a pair of glasses.
Policy should set out plainly that recording a client’s premises, staff or documents without permission is not acceptable and should give staff a clear, simple instruction to remove or switch off any recording-capable device before entering a client site. There may be times when, with the client’s knowledge, smart glasses could be used, such as documenting a job for quality or insurance purposes, but those occasions will be rare.
Employment contracts and site conduct rules should also make clear that unauthorised recording could be treated as a disciplinary matter, so staff understand this isn’t a grey area left to individual judgement. Training doesn’t need to be elaborate either, with a line or two added to existing site induction and toolbox talk material, covering what the policy says and why it matters, usually enough.
However, those handling workplace disputes should recognise that covert recordings may still be admitted as evidence before a tribunal and should ensure that workplace conversations are conducted with that possibility in mind.
Employers should also weigh their obligations under the Equality Act 2010, as wearable technology may increasingly constitute a reasonable adjustment for a disabled employee in some cases, meaning restrictions on its use need to be assessed on a case-by-case basis rather than applied uniformly.
A small change now, rather than an awkward conversation later.
The organisations reaching for outright bans, such as courts, pub chains, theatres, event organisers etc, are mostly managing a space for a few hours at a time. Contractors are in someone else’s building for hours or days, sometimes repeatedly, building the kind of trust that wins repeat work and referrals, which makes getting this right, quietly and sensibly, more valuable, not less.
A short update to staff handbooks and site conduct guidance costs very little and heads off a conversation no contractor wants to be having with a client after the fact.
Claire Scanlan is an employment solicitor with Buckles Law
