German court: Google infringed privacy by publishing aerial images of a home not visible to the public without consent

According to Deutsche Welle, a state court in the German state of Hesse upheld a lawsuit brought by a Frankfurt man against the U.S. tech giant Google, ruling that Google's publication of aerial images of his home and property on Google Earth and Google Maps infringed the privacy rights of the plaintiff and his family.

The court said explicitly that, at least with regard to areas of the property not visible to the public: “No one should be forced to accept the worldwide publication of aerial images of their property without their consent.” It found that the plaintiff's “personal space” encompassed the entire residential plot; the aerial images could reveal clues about the property's size, design and private lifestyle, while exposing potential weaknesses in the home's security perimeter.

According to Deutsche Welle, the court criticized the “surveillance” involved in the way Google obtained the images, noting that the company had not given the property owner prior notice that the property would be photographed. The court also held that even if Google claims its services help democratize knowledge, that cannot justify intruding into private spaces or serve as a defense to publishing the images on grounds of freedom of information.

The case concretely illustrates the unequal power relationship between large technology platforms and residential property owners: Google already possessed the aerial imagery and published it worldwide through its mapping products, while the plaintiff had to resort to litigation to assert his right to consent and protect the boundaries of his private space. By examining both the method of obtaining the imagery and the consent required for its publication, the court highlighted the challenges residential privacy faces as technology platforms expand the scope of data collection and public disclosure.

The ruling was limited to the publication, without consent, of aerial images of property areas not visible to the public in this particular case; it did not impose a blanket ban on aerial imagery of homes. The judgment can still be appealed.