Cologne Court: Connected Pet Feeder is Not Secret Surveillance

A connected pet feeder advertised for "remote monitoring" has aroused the suspicion of the German Federal Network Agency. Because it has a camera that can only be recognized up close and a microphone that is not visible from the outside, the authority recognized it as an abusive telecommunications facility. However, the Administrative Court of Cologne (VG) sees it differently and permits sales and use until further notice: Anyone who sees the feeder "expects a surveillance function from it."

The central legal provision is Paragraph 8 of the Telecommunications-Digital-Services-Data-Protection-Act (TDDD). It prohibits telecommunications facilities that "by their form pretend to be another object or are disguised as everyday objects" and are intended to secretly record non-public utterances or images. The Federal Network Agency (BNetzA) considered this to be the case, but the VG Cologne does not: To justify a ban, "the object in question must not be recognizable as a telecommunications facility, but rather be disguised."

However, no disguise is given. The feeder looks like a feeder. The perception by third parties is decisive. "Undoubtedly, one would not expect a recording function from a conventional pet bowl. This is different with a pet feeder. Pet feeders differ from pet bowls solely because they have an entirely different shape (high attachment above the food bowl, L-shaped). In addition, they have a surface that stands out darkly against a light background (in which the camera lens is located, editor's note) as well as a visible speaker," the VG Cologne explains. "They thus come closer to the classic image of a robot than to that of a pet bowl. If a third party perceives the object as a pet feeder, they simultaneously expect a surveillance function from it."

The fact that the camera is "only recognizable up close" and the microphone is not at all recognizable is just as little decisive as the fact that transmission and recording can be triggered unnoticed. "Rather, it is necessary that the object as a whole is designed in such a way that it visually gives the impression of being an object that has no recording functions whatsoever."

Retailer refused stickers

The lawsuit was filed by the German retailer to whom the Federal Network Agency prohibited sales in Germany in October 2024. He had explicitly advertised the device with "remote monitoring" at the time. The retailer did not want to implement the solution proposed by the BNetzA, namely attaching a clearly visible, fluorescent, non-removable camera and microphone symbol to the device.

He does not have to do that now, because the court decision suspends the sales ban until it is lifted. The BNetzA can appeal the suspensive order and/or initiate a more detailed court proceeding to examine the matter. Of course, it can also drop the case. In any case, the VG Cologne believes that the retailer has "predominant prospects of success in the main proceedings" (File No. 1 L 2838/25 of December 22, 2025).

(ds)