Offlimits prepares legal action to pull Meta’s AI glasses from Dutch stores

Dutch advocacy group Offlimits is preparing urgent legal proceedings to get Meta’s AI glasses removed from stores after the company rejected demands to stop selling them. The dispute reaches beyond people secretly using a camera: Offlimits also argues that Meta bears responsibility for processing footage of people who never agreed to be recorded.

Secret recordings prompted the withdrawal demand

The confrontation followed reporting by Dutch newspaper AD that hundreds of videos of unsuspecting Dutch women and girls, made with Meta glasses, were circulating on Telegram and sites devoted to covert photographs and videos. NL Times described that reporting as the catalyst for Offlimits and The Firewall Foundation approaching Meta.

Their demands covered two activities: selling the AI-enabled Ray-Ban glasses in the Netherlands and processing recordings made without the explicit consent of people appearing in them. The proposed remedy therefore goes beyond removing individual clips after publication. The organizations asked Meta to stop supplying the product and to stop handling the disputed recordings.

Offlimits says Meta let the organizations’ deadline pass and refused to engage in dialogue. The company also rejected the demands. That refusal is the immediate backdrop to the group’s preparation of summary proceedings, the urgent court process through which it wants the glasses removed from Dutch stores.

Meta points to the light; Offlimits challenges the design

On October 12, Meta eyewear chief Alex Himmel said the company would not withdraw the glasses, according to NL Times. His defense centered on the built-in light on the front of the frames, which he said warns bystanders when the camera is recording.

Asked about people covering or disabling that indicator, Himmel blamed “bad actors,” NL Times reported. Offlimits director Robbert Hoving rejected that explanation in comments to Amsterdam newspaper Parool, arguing that Meta was assigning responsibility to users rather than addressing how the product could make abuse easier.

It is always the user's fault - never the fact that a product is brought to market that makes abuse easy

Robbert Hoving, Offlimits director, speaking to Parool, as quoted by NL Times

The proposed case also follows the footage

Offlimits lawyer Otto Volgenant advances a second argument that does not depend solely on whether a bystander can see the light. He says recordings enter Meta’s systems, making the company directly responsible for processing them. That is his legal contention, not an established finding about Meta’s liability.

Volgenant argues that secretly filming people violates their fundamental privacy rights and the GDPR, Europe’s data-protection rules, and can also be a criminal offense. He further alleges that Meta itself violates those rules by processing the material. His argument places the company’s handling of recordings alongside the conduct of whoever wears the glasses.

For now, this remains a planned legal challenge, not a court-ordered withdrawal. No court has ruled on the organizations’ claims. Offlimits confirmed its preparation of proceedings to NL Times, but a filing has not been confirmed and there is no confirmed hearing date.

The published hearing expectations differ substantially. NL Times’ October 13 article said Offlimits anticipated an emergency hearing, possibly that Wednesday or Thursday. Gadget Review’s October 14 account instead put the expectation at roughly six weeks, with a court date pending. Neither estimate should be treated as a scheduled hearing or a deadline for a judicial decision.