Meta sued for over Rs 20000000 by Delhi man after Instagram creator films him using Meta glasses

Ray-Ban Meta smart glasses have landed at the centre of a legal dispute in Delhi, after a man accused an Instagram creator of secretly filming him at a café and uploading the footage without his consent. The video has since amassed more than 4.19 lakh views on Instagram. Acting through a legal notice, the man is seeking the video's removal, a formal apology, and Rs 2.05 crore in compensation from both the creator and Meta Platforms.

Dated August 24, the notice extends beyond the creator's alleged actions to implicate Meta on two fronts: as the company behind Instagram, which allegedly kept the reel online despite a complaint, and as the developer and marketer of the camera-equipped eyewear used to record him.

According to the Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF), which is representing the man pro bono, this may be among the first cases in India to test whether a smart-glasses manufacturer can be held liable for harm stemming from a product's design. Nothing in the notice has been tested in court, and its claims remain allegations at this stage. The man, referred to as X, is being represented by advocate Apar Gupta.


Also Read: Bengaluru techie rejects Rs 20 lakh hike despite bigger role, here’s what made him say no

Inside the café encounter

The IFF's account places the incident at a Costa Coffee outlet in Khan Market on July 24, where X was sitting alone when a stranger, since identified as an Instagram creator, struck up a conversation. What followed, according to X, was a string of unwelcome remarks and questions, with the creator continuing to follow him even after he tried to disengage. X reportedly alerted café staff and switched seats in an effort to get away from the interaction.

Unbeknownst to him, the IFF says, the exchange was being captured the entire time through the creator's Ray-Ban Meta glasses, with associates allegedly filming from additional angles, again without X's awareness or consent. Two days later, on July 26, the footage appeared as a reel on Instagram.

A video that kept growing

Within roughly two weeks, the reel had racked up more than 4.19 lakh views, close to 15,700 likes and over 500 comments, per the IFF's figures.

X flagged the video and account to Instagram on July 27, but found the platform's complaint categories lacking, there was no option specifically for privacy invasion or non-consensual filming, so he filed it under "bullying or harassment" instead. He also lodged a separate complaint with Meta's India grievance officer, citing "privacy violation — sharing of personal information or representation without consent." Instagram's eventual response, according to the IFF, was that the content did not breach its Community Standards.

The glasses themselves are under scrutiny

What sets this notice apart is its focus on the hardware, not just the person who allegedly used it. Ray-Ban Meta glasses, a joint creation of Meta and eyewear giant EssilorLuxottica, look like ordinary sunglasses but let wearers shoot photos and video without touching a phone. They've been sold in India since May 2025, starting at Rs 29,900.

A small LED on the frame lights up while recording, but the notice argues this signal is too subtle to reliably warn people nearby, especially those with no reason to suspect the eyewear doubles as a camera. "The recording indicator on the said devices is inadequate and easily overlooked, and the harm that eventuated to our client is due to a design that is foreseeably enabled," it states.

Two separate claims against Meta

The case against Meta is built on two distinct arguments. One treats Meta as Instagram's owner, responsible for continuing to host the reel after X's complaint. The other treats Meta as a product manufacturer, responsible for how the glasses themselves were designed and marketed.

The notice frames this second claim as one of negligence, arguing Meta "owed and breached a duty of care" to X, and stresses that liability tied to product design is legally distinct from Meta's role as a platform hosting someone else's content.

Testing the limits of intermediary protection

The notice also brings Section 79 of the Information Technology Act into play, a provision that typically shields online intermediaries from liability over content posted by others. Its argument, however, is that this shield shouldn't extend to a negligence claim rooted in decisions Meta made about its own product's design and marketing, an argument that has not yet been examined by any court.

If the case proceeds, it could open up a wider legal question around wearable cameras: whether device makers owe a responsibility to ensure bystanders can realistically tell when they're being filmed, beyond just an indicator light.

Also read:

What's being sought

X's demands include taking down the reel, securing a public apology, and Rs 2.05 crore in damages, with both the creator and Meta named as respondents, albeit on different legal grounds. For now, the matter remains at the notice stage, with no court ruling yet on the allegations, Meta's potential liability, or the compensation being claimed.