> but I can't understand how it's not absolutely destroying the Ray-Ban brand?
> Ray-Ban seems to go completely free.
because reasonable adults can distinguish between Meta and Ray-Ban.
Reminds me of this: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/oct/17/billy-bush-f...
Donald Trump - becomes president, after all it was just “locker room talk”
Billy Bush - career destroyed for passively chuckling
Ray-Ban is choosing to produce these in a partnership. They don't have to participate and by doing so they're guaranteeing they exist and profiting from the bad behavior. And even making them more stylish and therefore more appealing.
A "reasonable adult" would have no trouble understanding why someone who thinks the existence of these glasses is a moral and privacy nightmare would also seek to punish Ray-Ban.