Meta smart glasses behind the wheel: Are they legal in your state, and who pays after a crash?
Meta’s display-equipped smart glasses can do more than take photos and play music. At its annual Connect conference in late September, the company expanded availability of its Meta Ray-Ban Display glasses, which feature a small screen inside the right lens, and cost $799 in the U.S. It also announced features such as phone notifications displayed on the glasses’ screen.
Meta has also said that daily use of its smart glasses has tripled over the past year. That growth, combined with display models that put a screen directly in the wearer’s line of sight, raises a legal question with no simple nationwide answer: Can a driver legally wear and use them on the road?
Meta is not named in state distracted-driving statutes, which generally do not single out specific products. Many of those laws predate consumer glasses with cameras, voice assistants, and displays. Whether using them is legal often depends on what the driver is doing, what the device shows, and how a state defines a phone, screen, or electronic communications device.
The issue extends beyond traffic tickets. According to The Capital Law Firm, a Los Angeles personal injury law firm, if a driver’s use of smart glasses becomes evidence in a crash investigation, it could affect an insurance claim or a civil lawsuit.
State Laws Regulate the Conduct, Not the Glasses
Drivers can generally wear ordinary prescription glasses or sunglasses. Smart glasses raise different questions because they can involve communication, recording, navigation and on-screen information.
California addresses the issue through two separate laws. Vehicle Code Section 23123.5 prohibits drivers from holding and operating a handheld wireless telephone or electronic wireless communications device unless it is configured for voice-operated, hands-free use. The law allows a single tap or swipe on a device mounted to the windshield or dashboard. Whether a pair of glasses counts as an electronic wireless communications device under that statute could depend on its features and the facts of a traffic stop or crash.
Display-capable glasses also raise questions under Vehicle Code Section 27602. That law bars driving while a screen showing entertainment or business applications is operating and visible to the driver. It exempts certain GPS, mapping and vehicle information displays. The statute does not specifically address displays built into a pair of glasses.
Florida and Texas Take Different Approaches
Florida takes a two-part approach. Florida Statutes Section 316.305 prohibits drivers from manually typing or entering messages into a wireless communications device or reading or sending messages for nonvoice communication while driving, with exceptions that include navigation and hands-free use. A separate law, Section 316.306, prohibits wireless handheld use in designated school zones and active work zones. Both statutes define covered devices as those used or capable of being used in a handheld manner, a definition that does not clearly fit glasses worn on the face.
Texas Transportation Code Section 545.4251 prohibits reading, writing or sending an electronic message using a portable wireless communications device while operating a vehicle, with exceptions for navigation and hands-free use.
These examples show why the answer rarely turns on the product alone. A driver listening to directions through a voice-controlled device presents a different legal question from one who is reading messages, watching a display, adjusting settings, recording video or responding to an AI prompt while moving.
Local ordinances and rules for teen drivers, commercial drivers, school zones, and work zones can add further restrictions. Drivers crossing state lines may encounter materially different rules on the same trip.
Hands-Free Does Not Mean Risk-Free
Hands-free laws were largely written to address physical interaction with phones. Smart glasses may remove the need to hold a device, but they do not eliminate the pull on a driver's eyes and attention.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) reported that 3,208 people were killed and 315,167 were injured in crashes involving distracted drivers in 2024. NHTSA does not track smart glasses as a separate category, so the data cannot show whether any of those crashes involved the devices. Still, the agency's definition of distraction is broad: any activity that diverts attention from driving.
Under that definition, even a hands-free device can compete for a driver's focus. A spoken question, an incoming alert or directions displayed in the field of view may draw attention away from road conditions, pedestrians, traffic signals, and other driving demands.
A Citation Is Not Required for Civil Liability
When a crash occurs, police, insurers, and lawyers often look at whether a driver was paying attention and following traffic laws. Phone records, vehicle data, witness statements, camera footage and the device itself may become relevant evidence.
A driver could potentially be found negligent even if no distracted-driving citation was issued. In a civil case, the central questions usually include whether the driver used reasonable care and whether that conduct contributed to the crash, the standard reflected in California's civil jury instructions. The answer can turn on facts such as whether the driver looked away from the roadway, missed a braking vehicle, drifted across a lane, or failed to see a pedestrian.
Who May Pay After a Smart-Glasses Crash?
In the most common scenario, the at-fault driver's auto liability insurer would be the first source of payment for injuries or property damage, subject to policy limits and the applicable state's insurance rules. In no-fault states such as Florida, an injured person's personal injury protection coverage typically pays medical bills first, up to its limits. A driver's personal assets can also be at stake when losses exceed available coverage.
An employer may be responsible when an employee causes a crash while driving within the scope of the job. A rideshare company, vehicle owner or other party may also be included in a claim, depending on the facts and state law.
When a Manufacturer Could Share Responsibility
Claims against a device manufacturer are possible, but not automatic just because a driver used the product. Product liability cases generally require evidence that a design, manufacturing or warning defect contributed to the injury. A driver's decision to use a functioning device in a distracting manner would not, by itself, establish the manufacturer's responsibility.
Newer wearable and in-car technology can complicate evidence gathering after a crash. That is particularly true when a device has a camera, an app connection or settings that may help show how it was being used.
As smart glasses become more capable, state legislatures and courts may eventually address them directly. Until then, drivers face a familiar standard in a new form: keeping attention on the road remains the legal and practical baseline, whether the distraction is held in a hand, mounted on a dashboard or worn on a face.
This story was produced by The Capital Law Firm and reviewed and distributed by Stacker.
