BGH Refers GDPR 'Household Exemption' Question to CJEU Over Kitchen Camera and Chat Forwarding Cases

Germany's top civil court has paused two lawsuits, one over a hidden kitchen camera, one over forwarded private chat messages, and asked the EU's top court to define how far the GDPR's household exemption reaches for ordinary people recording or sharing information about relatives.

Information last verified on September 20, 2026.

Status: On 17 September 2026 the Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice), First Civil Senate, stayed both appeals, I ZR 256/25 and I ZR 289/25, and referred questions on the scope of Article 2(2)(c) GDPR to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). In I ZR 289/25 the BGH referred additional questions on Article 6(1)(f) and Article 13 GDPR. The BGH has not ruled on the merits of either case, and the CJEU has not yet answered the referred questions. Both proceedings remain paused until Luxembourg responds.

Jurisdiction scope: This is German federal civil procedure and EU data protection law (the GDPR, called the DSGVO in Germany), decided by the Bundesgerichtshof and now pending before the Court of Justice of the European Union in Luxembourg. It does not apply in the United States, and nothing in this article describes US privacy or recording law.

What Happened

On 17 September 2026 the Bundesgerichtshof's First Civil Senate issued press release Nr. 169/2026 announcing that it had stayed two pending appeals and referred questions to the CJEU under the preliminary-ruling procedure. Both cases share the same underlying legal problem: whether recordings or messages that capture or concern a family member fall inside the GDPR's household exemption, Article 2(2)(c), or outside it, where the Regulation's full rules on lawful processing, access, and deletion would apply.

I ZR 289/25 grew out of a family dispute over a shared property. The plaintiff, the mother of the first defendant, occupied an upper apartment while her daughter and son-in-law occupied the apartment below. She had the defendants' permission to enter and use their kitchen. The defendants installed a camera there. After the plaintiff was accused of stealing coins, her daughter forwarded the camera footage, which showed the plaintiff in the kitchen, to the police to support that accusation. The plaintiff says the footage was also shared with another of her daughters. She sued for an injunction against further filming, disclosure of what personal data had been processed about her, deletion of the footage, damages, and her legal costs. The Landgericht Hildesheim dismissed her claim on 1 October 2024, and the Oberlandesgericht Celle upheld that dismissal on 10 April 2025, holding that the household exemption applied because the camera covered only the defendants' own private living space.

I ZR 256/25 concerns forwarded private chat messages rather than video. Two friends had exchanged confidential messenger conversations about the plaintiff's workplace, a medical practice. After the friendship broke down, the defendant forwarded those private messages to the practice's office manager. The plaintiff was subsequently dismissed from her job and sued for 7,500 EUR in compensation plus her costs. The trial court ruled in her favor, but the appeals court reversed on the same ground as the kitchen-camera case: that the household exemption covered the forwarding.

The BGH's own press release frames the difficulty as unresolved at the EU level: it is not settled how far "personal" or "family" activity extends once material originally gathered or exchanged in a private setting is handed to a third party, such as the police or an employer, for a purpose outside that private setting.

What the Law Actually Says

The GDPR applies broadly to the processing of personal data (Article 2(1)), but Article 2(2)(c) removes a specific category from its scope: processing carried out "by a natural person in the course of a purely personal or household activity." In German, the same carve-out reads "die Verarbeitung personenbezogener Daten durch natürliche Personen zur Ausübung ausschließlich persönlicher oder familiärer Tätigkeiten." Where the exemption applies, the GDPR's rules on a lawful basis for processing, the right of access, and the right to deletion simply do not attach to that specific processing, though other bodies of German law (personality rights under the Civil Code, or the criminal-law rules on unauthorized recordings) can still apply on their own terms. For the general German recording-law picture that sits alongside this exemption, see Germany's recording law overview and, on using recordings this way, secretly made recordings as evidence and neighbor and household surveillance cameras. If the exemption does not apply, the processing falls back under the full GDPR, including the right of access to your own data that the plaintiff in I ZR 289/25 is asking the German courts to enforce.

The BGH's referral order states the open question this way: «Fraglich ist insbesondere, wie die Begriffe "persönliche" und "familiäre" Tätigkeiten zu verstehen sind und ob das Merkmal "zur Ausübung" eine Berücksichtigung des mit der Datenverarbeitung verfolgten Zwecks erfordert.» In English, that asks, in substance, how the terms "personal" and "family" activities are to be understood, and whether the requirement "for the exercise of" (zur Ausübung) means the CJEU must also look at the purpose the data processing was actually put to. That second half is the part doing the work in both pending cases: a camera aimed at a private kitchen, or a chat between friends, starts out looking personal, but in each case the material was then redirected toward a report to police or a complaint to an employer. Whether that redirection takes the processing outside "purely personal or household activity" is exactly what the CJEU has been asked to decide.

What Happens Next

A stay-and-refer order sends the two case files to Luxembourg under the preliminary-ruling procedure of Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The CJEU will invite written observations, typically from the parties, interested EU member states, and the European Commission, and may hold an oral hearing before issuing a judgment interpreting Article 2(2)(c). There is no fixed or predictable timetable for that process, and this article does not estimate one. Once the CJEU answers the referred questions, the Bundesgerichtshof will resume I ZR 256/25 and I ZR 289/25 and apply that interpretation to decide, for the first time on the merits, whether the household exemption protected the kitchen camera footage and the forwarded chat messages. Nothing about the eventual answer, or the eventual outcome of either German case, can be predicted from the referral itself.

Analysis: Why This Matters

The following is analysis from the Recording Law Editorial Team. Article 2(2)(c) has long been read as the provision that keeps ordinary, non-commercial life, a family photo album, a home security camera, a group chat with friends, outside the GDPR's compliance machinery. What both referred cases share is that the recording or the message started inside that private sphere but did not stay there: it was handed to the police, or to an employer, for a purpose connected to a dispute rather than to the household itself. That pattern is common well beyond these two families. Home and doorbell cameras increasingly capture people other than the household, and it is now routine for footage, or a screenshotted chat, to end up as evidence in an entirely different context, a workplace investigation, a criminal complaint, a civil suit. Whether the household exemption survives that hand-off, or falls away once the data is put to an outside purpose, is a question EU courts have never definitively answered, and it is why the BGH chose to ask rather than to guess. Readers should treat this as an open legal question under active litigation, not as a settled rule in either direction.

How This Affects You

If you use a home security camera, a nanny cam, or a doorbell camera in Germany, or anywhere else in the EU, and that camera can capture people who are not part of your own household, such as relatives, in-laws, or a neighbor's property, this referral is a reminder that the household exemption is not an automatic shield, particularly once footage leaves the home for a purpose like a police report or a dispute with a family member. The same caution applies to forwarding a private chat or message that involves someone else, especially if you plan to hand it to a third party such as an employer. None of this means such recordings or forwards are unlawful; it means the legal line has not yet been drawn by the EU's highest court, and this case is the one drawing it. For the wider EU comparison, see Germany's data privacy laws in world context.

This article is general legal information about a pending German and EU court referral, not legal advice. Reporting is based on the Bundesgerichtshof's own press releases current as of 20 September 2026. Anyone affected by a similar dispute should consult a German or EU-qualified lawyer about their specific situation.

Last updated: 2026-09-20. This is a developing story; details verified as of 2026-09-20.

Frequently Asked Questions

Did the Bundesgerichtshof rule on these cases on 17 September 2026?

No. The BGH stayed both appeals, I ZR 256/25 and I ZR 289/25, and referred legal questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union. Neither the BGH nor the CJEU has decided the merits of either case.

What is the GDPR's household exemption?

Article 2(2)(c) GDPR removes processing of personal data by a natural person in the course of a purely personal or household activity from the Regulation's scope. In German this is called the Haushaltsausnahme. Where it applies, GDPR rules such as the right of access or the right to deletion do not attach to that processing.

What are the two underlying cases about?

I ZR 289/25 involves a mother who sued her daughter and son-in-law after they secretly filmed her in a shared kitchen and gave the footage to police over a coin-theft accusation. I ZR 256/25 involves a plaintiff who sued after a friend forwarded her private messenger chats about her workplace to her employer, leading to her dismissal.

What exactly is the BGH asking the CJEU to decide?

In substance, how the terms personal and family activities in Article 2(2)(c) GDPR should be understood, and whether the requirement for the exercise of that activity means the CJEU must also weigh the purpose the data processing was actually used for, such as reporting to police or an employer.

When will the CJEU decide, and what happens to the German cases then?

There is no set or predictable timeline for a CJEU preliminary ruling. Once the CJEU answers, the Bundesgerichtshof will resume the two stayed appeals and apply that interpretation to decide the cases on the merits.

Does this referral apply to home security cameras in the United States?

No. This is a matter of German civil procedure and EU data protection law before German and EU courts. It has no direct application to US privacy or recording law.

Does this mean home cameras or forwarding private chats is now illegal under the GDPR?

No such conclusion follows from a referral. The CJEU has not ruled, and this article does not predict how it will. The referral shows that the boundary of the household exemption in situations like these is genuinely unsettled, not that either practice is now unlawful.