The term "spatial computing" encompasses virtual reality, augmented reality and mixed reality and refers to human-machine interaction in which three-dimensional calculations are used to create and manipulate references to real objects in space. Physical interactions such as body movements, gestures and speech are used as input, merging the real and digital worlds. When Apple launched the Vision Pro in the US in early 2024, "spatial computing" suddenly gained visibility (we reported on this in our article from 2023).
Since then, the economic reality of the market has changed fundamentally. Technically sophisti-cated products have not been able to establish themselves as a mass market product and will no longer be built for the time being. Price, weight and social isolation of the wearer proved to be prohibitive barriers. In contrast, smart glasses such as the Ray-Ban Meta are experiencing explosive growth: in the first half of 2025, global deliveries increased by 110 % year-on-year, driven by the integration of multimodal AI. These devices do not primarily function as a display, but as a sensor front end for large language models that process visual and auditory input from the environment. However, the practical relevance of these "always-on" devices significantly exacerbates the legal challenges.
The legal situation has also changed fundamentally since 2024: The AI Act has come into force and the ECJ judgement C-422/24 of December 2025 has clarified the data protection require-ments for body cameras. Time to revisit the topic.
Legal challenges
Spatial computing is associated with several legal challenges, some of which are briefly outlined below:
- Labour law
Section 87 (1) no. 6 Works Constitution Act applies to the use of spatial computing in an operational context. In a landmark decision (1 ABR 16/23), the German Federal Labour Court found that the introduction of a headset system with the option to listen in is al-ready subject to mandatory co-determination by the works council, even if no recording is made. This case law is directly transferable to VR/AR glasses, as these are technically suitable for monitoring behaviour (direction of gaze, duration of speech, reactions). The mere monitoring pressure justifies the right of co-determination.
- Data protection
A large amount of personal data is processed when using spatial computing solutions. Eye-tracking data allows conclusions to be drawn about sensitive health data and per-sonality traits (Art. 9 para. 1 GDPR). The recording of third parties in public spaces us-ing smart glasses is particularly problematic: Unlike smartphones, these allow record-ings from a first-person perspective with minimal signalling. The LED indicators are barely perceptible in bright daylight. According to ECJ case law (Ryneš), the household exception (Art. 2 para. 2 lit. c GDPR) does not apply if the public space is recorded. The ECJ ruling C-422/24 of 18 December 2025 further aggravates the situation: According to this ruling, personal data collected by body cameras can trigger direct information obli-gations under Art. 13 and 14 GDPR. For smart glasses users, it is practically impossible to fulfil these obligations towards passers-by who are captured by chance.
- AI Act
Since February 2025, the use of AI systems for emotion recognition in work and educa-tional contexts has been prohibited by the AI Act (Art. 5 para. 1 lit. f). Spatial computing headsets with eye/face tracking are particularly exposed here. An exception only applies for medical or security purposes. Outside of these contexts, systems for emotion recog-nition or biometric categorisation may be classified as high-risk AI and subject to strict conformity requirements from August 2026 (QMS, bias testing, CE marking).
- Liability
Spatial computing solutions raise a variety of liability issues. The amended EU Product Liability Directive explicitly defines software as a "product". If a fault in the AR glasses causes damage, the manufacturer is liable regardless of fault. In the case of AI-controlled avatars, the question of attribution arises.
Conclusion
The development shows: Anyone wishing to categorise spatial computing from a legal perspec-tive must keep a close eye on the dynamic developments in the fields of technology and law. While technical concepts are increasingly merging and classic AR/VR solutions are being com-bined with multimodal AI, the legal coordinate system is also evolving. Legal developments such as the AI Act are certainly attracting public attention and are therefore likely to be the focus of users. However, these generally remain abstract. Practical use of the devices (and therefore day-to-day compliance) is also characterised by court rulings that place existing rules in the context of the "day-to-day operations" of specific technologies and can trigger a need for action at short notice.
