Symbolic image: New Africa / Shutterstock.com
Smart food bowl with camera? Not a case for counterintelligence
A bowl that can do more than just dispense food is causing a stir: a retailer wanted to launch a connected automatic feeder on the German market—complete with camera and microphone. But the Federal Network Agency intervened and declared the device to be a covert surveillance system. The reasoning: the camera is barely visible, and the microphone is completely invisible—this constitutes impermissible camouflage.
However, the Cologne Administrative Court sees things completely differently. In a recent ruling (Ref. 1 L 2838/25), the court has allowed the retailer to continue selling the device for the time being, thereby overturning the Federal Network Agency's sales ban, at least for the time being.
Bowl or robot? Court finds clear words
At the heart of the legal dispute is a specific paragraph in the Telecommunications Data Protection Act (TDDD). It states that devices that look like everyday objects but actually record conversations or images without being noticed may not be operated or sold. The Federal Network Agency saw this as being the case with the automatic feeder and demanded, among other things, that a non-removable camera warning sticker be affixed to the device. The retailer refused—and filed a lawsuit.
The court has now ruled that there is no question of camouflage. Although the camera is small and the microphone invisible, the entire machine does not look like a normal food bowl, but rather like a technical device. It is L-shaped, has attachments and recognizable technical elements. Anyone who sees such a device today must expect it to record sound and images—for example, for remote monitoring of pets.
The literal translation is: "Automatic feeders differ from feeding bowls solely because they have a completely different shape [...]". The device looks more like a small robot than an everyday object without a function.
A victory for the dealer – and a setback for the authorities
This is good news for the retailer. He can now sell the smart pet feeder again—without having to add an additional warning sticker. However, the final word has not yet been spoken. The Federal Network Agency can appeal the decision or initiate detailed main proceedings. But the court has already indicated that the retailer has a good chance of success in the main proceedings.
What remains, then, is a fundamental conflict between data protection and technical reality: Must every device that can record be visibly marked—or is it sufficient if it can be recognized as potentially "smart"?
Welcome to everyday life in 2026
Now even the food bowl has become a data protection issue. Of course, surveillance should never be conducted secretly. However, this is not a spy pen, but an animal gadget with a camera—and it is clearly visible. Anyone who thinks that a device with a display, speaker, and lens optics is a silent food bowl probably also has a cell phone without a camera. The Federal Network Agency can and should intervene when it comes to backroom surveillance. But anyone who suspects a big cover-up in a food dispenser is missing the point. Technical reconnaissance is important—panic about smart everyday use is not.
Source: heise.de
