Australia Opens Privacy Probe Into Maker of Kmart's $89 Smartglasses App

Australia's privacy commissioner has launched an investigation into Shenzhen Qingcheng, the China-based company behind the HeyCyan app that runs in Kmart's $89 smartglasses, after the firm failed to respond to her inquiries.

The move escalates a controversy that began in August, when Guardian Australia reported that Kmart had sold out of the Anko-branded discount version of Meta's smartglasses. The devices can capture images and record high-definition video. That report triggered widespread public concern and calls to ban or restrict their use.

The smartglasses, sold under Kmart's Anko house brand, became known in Australian media as "pervert glasses" — a label that captured the core anxiety around the product: a cheap, unobtrusive wearable that can record people without their knowledge.

Why did the regulator step in?

The commissioner said Shenzhen Qingcheng failed to respond to her inquiries about the HeyCyan app. That non-response is the stated trigger for the formal probe. The investigation puts the app maker, rather than the retailer, at the center of the privacy regulator's attention, and it raises a concrete question about accountability: when a Chinese software company powers a product sold through an Australian discount chain, who answers to Australian regulators when questions arise?

The commissioner's decision to escalate to a formal investigation signals that unanswered inquiries from a privacy regulator carry consequences, at least procedurally, even when the company involved sits outside Australia's jurisdiction.

What makes these glasses controversial?

According to Guardian Australia's August reporting, the key facts of the product are:

• Kmart sold the glasses for $89 under its Anko brand.

• The device is a discount version of Meta's smartglasses.

• It can capture images.

• It can record high-definition video.

• The companion software, the HeyCyan app, was developed by Shenzhen Qingcheng, a China-based company.

• The stock sold out at Kmart following the product's release.

The combination of a low price point and covert recording capability is what drew the public backlash. Wearable cameras at $89 remove the cost barrier that previously limited such devices to early adopters, and the sell-out demand demonstrated how quickly they can spread into everyday settings — shops, public transport, schools, workplaces — where recording is rarely consensual.

What does the investigation mean in practice?

The probe is now the formal mechanism through which Australia's privacy regulator will press Shenzhen Qingcheng for answers. The commissioner's office has not, at this stage, announced findings or sanctions; what it has done is put the company under official scrutiny after the company declined to engage voluntarily.

The case also lands amid broader pressure on Australia to update its privacy framework for an era of ubiquitous, cheap recording devices. Calls to ban or restrict such glasses, reported in August, came from public concern rather than from existing statute, and the investigation will test whether current privacy law gives the regulator adequate reach over offshore app makers whose software ships in products sold on Australian shelves.

For consumers, the immediate so-what is straightforward: a $89 device that sold out nationwide is now the subject of an official privacy investigation, and the company behind its software declined to answer the regulator before she opened one. For the industry, the case is a signal that regulators intend to trace responsibility for camera-equipped wearables down the supply chain — from the retailer's shelf to the app developer's code, wherever it is based.