Apartment

photos and

privacy laws.

2. February 2026

from

Clemens Pfitzer

Can a real estate agent simply publish photos of the occupied apartment? Is a mere nod sufficient for the publication of interior photos? The Zweibrücken Higher Regional Court has clarified where the data protection limits are and what brokers must observe.

Data protection traps in real estate marketing

The marketing of real estate depends on high-quality images. When selling a property that is still occupied, interior photos are regularly taken for the exposé. However, when occupied properties are photographed, estate agents quickly become the target of data protection law, as such images are regularly personal data, as they allow conclusions to be drawn about the living conditions of the residents. The current case before the Zweibrücken Higher Regional Court shows how estate agents should deal with requests for information and claims for damages if tenants suddenly question their consent.

When the exposé becomes a dispute

Ein Immobilienmakler wurde mit dem Verkauf einer Doppelhaushälfte beauftragt. Im Beisein der Mieter machte er Fotos der Innenräume der Wohnung, die später auf Portalen wie „Immoscout“ und in gedruckten Exposés erschienen. Nach der Veröffentlichung fühlten sich die Mieter jedoch „demaskiert“ und forderten umfassende Auskunft über alle gespeicherten Daten sowie ein Schmerzensgeld von mindestens 1.000 EUR. Der Makler löschte daraufhin die Bilder und gab eine Negativauskunft ab – was den Mietern jedoch nicht genügte.

OLG Zweibrücken on data protection and real estate photos

With the decision of the OLG Zweibrücken (Judgment of 09.12.2025 – Ref. 5 U 82/24 ), the plaintiff tenants were only minimally successful against the estate agent because of the apartment photos, but were otherwise largely unsuccessful.

Information about photographs

After receiving the lawyer’s letter, the estate agent stated that all photos had been deleted and no copies had been made. The court considered this to be an effective negative disclosure. The decisive factor was that information is deemed to have been provided if the party providing the information has the intention to provide complete information, regardless of whether it is actually correct. The court expressly stated that the information provided by the estate agent was in fact incorrect (paper printouts of the exposé had demonstrably been handed out to interested parties and a witness could not rule out the possibility that he had used cloud storage). However, this did not fundamentally change the fulfillment of the claim.

Information even after deletion

Soweit weitere Auskünfte begehrt wurde, waren die Mieter erfolgreich, denn die Negativauskunft der Maklerin bezog sich nur auf die Lichtbilder. Sie umfasste nicht die gesamten personenbezogenen Daten der Mieter. Das Gericht betont jedoch, dass bei einem Alleinmaklerauftrag nahezu zwangsläufig auch Name, Vorname und Anschrift der Mieter gespeichert werden. Der sei ein weitergehender Auskunftsanspruch berechtigt. Die Maklerin wurde verurteilt, umfassend Auskunft zu erteilen – unter anderem über welche Daten sie verarbeitet, woher diese stammen, wie lange sie gespeichert werden und ob automatisierte Entscheidungsfindung eingesetzt wird.

Implied consent: Actions speak louder than words

Despite the right to information, the Higher Regional Court held that the data processing was in itself lawful. Anyone who lets the estate agent’s employees into the apartment and watches them take photographs, knowing that the images are intended for sale, gives effective consent by conclusive behavior (implied). Written form is not mandatory; the GDPR only requires a clear expression of intent.

Although the estate agent had not informed the tenants of their right of withdrawal, this breach was not the cause of the alleged damage, as the publication itself was covered by the effective consent.

No pre-trial legal fees

The tenants had also claimed pre-trial legal fees in the amount of € 766.36. The OLG rejected these in full for several reasons.

A claim for reimbursement of pre-trial legal fees requires an actual violation of the GDPR at the time of the out-of-court legal action.

The estate agent was not in default, as no deadline was set in the information letter. The information was also not otherwise late, as the information was provided within one month. In addition, consent had been given and the lack of information about the right of withdrawal did not lead to further justified claims by the plaintiff tenants. The out-of-court legal fees were therefore not recoverable.

What does this mean for brokers?

The ruling provides clear instructions for action:

• Interior photos of occupied properties are personal data. Real estate agents cannot rely on the fact that the mere permission to take photographs constitutes full consent, even if the court affirmed implied consent in this case.
• The information on the right of withdrawal pursuant to Art. 7 para. 3 sentence 3 GDPR is mandatory. Failure to do so does not invalidate the consent, but constitutes a GDPR violation in its own right.
• Negative information can fulfill the right to information – but only if it covers the entire scope of the request for information. Anyone who only provides information about part of the data and ignores the rest of the stored data has not fulfilled the right to information under data protection law.
• Deletion after receipt of a letter from a lawyer does not automatically lead to an extended right to information – unless there are indications that the deletion was carried out deliberately in order to circumvent the obligation to provide information.

Conclusion

We are happy to

advise you about

Data protection!

Contact form

Call now!