Homeowner

beats

Google Earth.

28. October 2026

by

Clemens Pfitzer

Is a map service allowed to display aerial photos of a private individual’s property anywhere in the world, including the backyard? And does the owner first have to prove that he is at particular risk? The Regional Court of Frankfurt am Main answered both questions in favor of a homeowner.

A residential house from every angle

A man lives with his wife and children in a residential building in Frankfurt am Main. Professionally, he is the managing director of a large real estate brokerage firm and appears in public in this capacity. He keeps his private life out of the public eye, however. According to the court’s press release, he had already succeeded in having images of his house blurred on Google Street View and Apple Look Around.

Google renders the Earth’s surface in three dimensions in Google Earth and Google Maps. This is based on aerial and satellite imagery. Users can freely adjust the angle of view and orientation. This made it possible to view the fenced-in property from every angle. The rear area, which is not visible from the street, was also visible. The image can be zoomed in on and shows the property boundaries. According to Google’s lawyers during the oral hearing, the images were taken by a company that flies over the properties at a high altitude.

Curiosity or freedom of information?

The homeowner demanded that Google stop displaying the images and remove them from both services. He argued that any user could view all the structures on his property in detail, which would allow them to draw conclusions about his living conditions and financial circumstances.

Google considered the impact to be extremely minor. The services did not allow searches for individuals, but only for locations, addresses, and businesses. This was balanced against a significant public need for information, which is protected by the freedom of information guaranteed by the Basic Law. Forming a picture of the world is one of humanity’s oldest needs. Furthermore, Google invoked its freedom of occupation. Anyone living in a community must accept a moderate disclosure of personal data in the interest of others.

Frankfurt Regional Court Prohibits the 3D Visualization

In its ruling dated September 24, 2026—Case No. 2-03 O 388/25 —the Regional Court of Frankfurt am Main prohibited Google from publishing three-dimensional representations of the property on Google Earth and Google Maps.

Why do aerial photographs of the property constitute an invasion of privacy?

The court bases the claim on the general law of personality. This law not only protects a person’s ability to express themselves to the outside world; it also guarantees a sphere of privacy.

In the court’s view, the private sphere does not end at the front door. It encompasses the entire enclosed property. The size of the property and the layout of the outdoor areas allow for inferences about the residents’ lifestyle. Furthermore, the images reveal the entrances to the property, which could be relevant to security.

The court places particular emphasis on the linking of data. Although Google does not publish residents’ names, the chamber considers this irrelevant. Data today is not stored in isolation but is also linked using artificial intelligence. Using the address, it is possible to determine—in conjunction with other sources—who lives where and under what circumstances. Anyone who collects and makes data available must be held accountable for such foreseeable linkages. We have already addressed Google’s responsibility for automatically processed information in the context of AI search results.

Finally, the nature of the recording increases the burden. The overflights are neither announced nor recognizable to those affected. The property owner is therefore unable to protect his property in advance, for example with tarps. Hedges and fences lose their effectiveness when viewed from above.

Does the property owner have to prove a specific risk?

No, according to the court. Whether the homeowner faces an increased risk of burglary due to his wealth is irrelevant. Every person is entitled to a private sanctuary, regardless of social status or living conditions. If individuals were required to demonstrate and prove their special need for protection, this would contradict the fundamental principle of the right to privacy.

The court attaches little weight to Google’s interests. It held that freedom of occupation is not at issue, because a requirement to obscure the view neither prevents nor regulates the exercise of a profession. While the users’ interest in exploring the world digitally is legitimate, However, it amounts to nothing more than curiosity or serves purposes not worthy of protection, such as preparing for a burglary. For urban planning, environmental planning, vacation planning, or geography lessons, a view into a private garden is not necessary. Nor does the role of managing director make the homeowner a public figure.

The Chamber views redaction upon request as a balancing measure. It considers this to be the less restrictive measure, one that is already practiced by another Google service. The purposes of the map services would thus remain achievable.

How does this align with previous case law?

The Frankfurt Regional Court expressly departs from the Itzehoe Regional Court. In its judgment of June 11, 2020—Case No. 10 O 84/20— the Itzehoe Regional Court had dismissed a lawsuit seeking to pixelate a property in Google Earth. According to the Frankfurt Regional Court’s ruling, the Itzehoe Regional Court had based its decision, among other things, on the fact that the data was available in isolation. It had also taken into account the intended purpose of the service. The Frankfurt Regional Court does not accept either of these arguments.

The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) has also addressed the issue of aerial photographs. In its ruling of November 5, 2024—Case No. VI ZR 110/23— it held that an aerial photograph of a former Formula 1 race car driver’s vacation villa published in a magazine was permissible. While the Federal Court of Justice did acknowledge an invasion of privacy, it considered it to be minor. The image showed only a peripheral area, was taken from a sales brochure, and was not obtained through spying. Furthermore, there was a public interest in information regarding the prominent plaintiff, which is protected by freedom of the press.

The Frankfurt Regional Court addressed these criteria and reached the opposite conclusion. The homeowner is not a public figure, the case does not involve press coverage, and the photos were taken secretly. The court expressly left open the question of whether there is also a claim under data protection law.

What does this mean for businesses?

For providers of map, geodata, and aerial imagery services, the ruling increases the pressure to have a procedure in place for blurring images upon request. The reasoning applies to anyone who collects and provides data. It remains to be seen whether other courts will follow suit. We believe it is possible that real estate portals or providers of drone and aerial imagery may also have to meet these standards.

Companies that use aerial photographs for property brochures, project presentations, or marketing should check whether private residential properties with hidden areas are recognizable in the images. This is particularly important if the images can be zoomed in on or are linked to addresses. In addition to privacy rights, such issues regularly involve IT law and data protection.

Conclusion

We’d be happy to

advise you on

IT law!

Contact Form

Call now!