Meta Put NameTag Code on Millions of Phones

Meta has spent weeks arguing that NameTag, its in-development face-recognition system for Meta Ray-Ban smart glasses, does not “exist.” But WIRED reports that inactive yet functional code for the feature had already been shipped inside the Meta AI app, which has been downloaded tens of millions of times, before Meta removed it on June 5.

WIRED first reported on June 4 that Meta had included robust but disabled NameTag code in the app. According to the publication’s analysis, pieces of the system appeared as early as January, with core components present by May. A researcher known as Buchodi, reviewing the code at WIRED’s request, was able to use the system to recognize a photo of Michel Foucault.

Meta’s public line has been narrower. After WIRED’s report, Andy Stone, Meta’s vice president of communications, wrote on X that the company could not explain how the feature works because “The feature doesn’t exist!” Meta then removed the code the following day.

What Bosworth said about NameTag

That claim became harder to square with comments from Andrew “Boz” Bosworth, Meta’s CTO, on the July 8 episode of The Most Interesting Thing in AI. Asked what NameTag would identify, Bosworth described a system that recognizes someone a user has previously met while wearing the glasses.

“Somebody you met in person with your glasses on who introduced themselves—or you said, 'OK, this is David, remember this person.' Only available to you when you’re wearing your glasses—this is a person you’ve met before. Here’s their name. They’re right in front of you … That’s what we call a NameTags feature.”

Bosworth also said it “would be a great feature.” Meta spokesperson Ryan Daniels later told WIRED there was “no contradiction,” stressing that the feature is not available to consumers and remains separate from “connecting glasses to a central database of people in the world,” which Meta says it is not building.

On-device faceprints and legal pressure

WIRED says NameTag works by turning faces captured by the glasses into numerical signatures, or faceprints, then comparing them against a database stored on a user’s device and populated by Meta’s servers. That differs from a single centralized face database, but the legal distinction may not fully protect Meta.

The article points to state biometric privacy laws including Illinois' Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) and Texas' Capture or Use of Biometric Identifier Act (CUBI). Courts have split on whether companies “possess” biometric data when it remains on users' phones:

• In 2021, a federal judge allowed a BIPA class action over Apple Photos to proceed.
• That case was certified as a class action in June 2026 and is awaiting rulings on several motions.
• In 2022, an Illinois appellate panel ruled Apple did not “possess” Face ID data stored only on users' devices.
• In 2024, a federal judge dismissed a similar suit over Samsung’s photo app.

WIRED says the bigger issue in these cases has been control: whether a feature is optional, whether users can disable it, and whether the company can access the data. Meta declined to answer WIRED’s questions in June about whether NameTag would be opt-in, how long it would keep faceprints or cropped images, why it licensed third-party face-recognition software, and whether anyone besides the user could reach the data.

That leaves the core dispute mostly semantic. WIRED’s position is that Meta designed a working face-recognition system, distributed it to millions of phones, and has publicly discussed how it could work — even as the company insists the feature does not exist.