Swiss FDPIC orders BLT to stop bodycam processing

The Swiss Federal Data Protection and Information Commissioner (FDPIC) published its decision of 29 September 2026 against Baselland Transport AG (BLT) on 5 November. It prohibits BLT from processing personal data through bodycams, according to the authority’s 1 October notice. BLT has appealed to the Federal Administrative Court, so the decision is not legally binding.

For compliance teams, the significant finding is not only that BLT’s controls were inadequate. The FDPIC treated the operator as a federal body when performing its concessionary transport duties, and applied the higher legal-basis requirements for processing particularly sensitive personal data and data processing that may seriously interfere with fundamental rights.

Why bodycam footage crossed the higher threshold

The FDPIC opened the investigation after learning on 17 February 2026 that BLT was using bodycams for its internal Order and Control Service. It immediately asked BLT to stop. BLT refused on 19 February, relying on its responsibility to protect employees and on a commissioned legal opinion that had concluded the use was lawful. The FDPIC formally opened an investigation on 24 February under Article 49 of the Swiss Data Protection Act.

The decision classifies the bodycam images and voices as personal data because they can identify travellers. It goes further than ordinary video surveillance: the recordings are “particularly sensitive personal data” under Article 5(c)(5) of the Act because BLT uses them to document suspected criminal offences and potentially pass evidence to law-enforcement authorities.

BLT is privately organised, but the FDPIC found that it acts as a federal body in the concessionary part of its business. Its transport concession creates a statutory transport obligation, and the operator therefore falls under the rules governing federal bodies, including Article 34(2)(a) and (c) of the Act. Those provisions require sufficient legal “level” and “density” for processing particularly sensitive data or carrying out processing capable of causing a serious interference with fundamental rights.

The cumulative surveillance finding

The FDPIC assessed the bodycams alongside BLT’s existing stationary cameras rather than in isolation. The cameras installed in BLT buses and trams record passengers comprehensively, continuously and in advance. The authority said the combined systems cover more than 150,000 people each day.

Article 55 of the Federal Passenger Transport Act allows transport companies to establish video surveillance to protect passengers, operations and infrastructure. The same provision and the Video Surveillance Ordinance for Public Transport underpin surveillance by more than 130 federally concessioned transport companies, according to the decision.

The FDPIC nevertheless identified a qualitative change when BLT added bodycams. The devices record sound as well as moving images, follow a specific interaction between staff and a passenger, and can be activated for suspected criminal conduct or an imminent physical or verbal escalation. The decision also points to the additional criminal-law protection for audio recordings under Article 179ter of the Swiss Criminal Code.

BLT argued that bodycams generated “massively less, but qualitatively better data” than fixed cameras, and that they helped de-escalate conflicts, protect staff and preserve evidence. The bodycams record a maximum of 30 seconds in standby mode, continuously overwriting that material without storing it. Storage starts only after activation in a concrete conflict situation.

Activation is limited by BLT’s internal directive to cases where staff believe an offence has been committed or could be committed, or where escalation is imminent. Staff must announce the recording, wear an identifying armband or badge, and make the recording visible or audible through warning tones and indicator lights. Covert use is prohibited, checks are carried out in teams, and only the chief operating officer or deputy may review recordings.

In Atlas’s view, the structural lesson is that operational safeguards do not resolve a deficient legal basis. A narrowly triggered recording can still be a serious interference when it captures identifiable voices and images for possible criminal enforcement, particularly where it is layered on top of continuous fixed-camera surveillance.

What other transport operators should review

The decision is directed at BLT and is not yet final. It does not itself prohibit every Swiss transport operator from using bodycams. But the FDPIC’s cumulative analysis reaches beyond BLT’s equipment: it concerns the statutory basis, the interaction between fixed and wearable cameras, the recording of sound and the scale of surveillance across concessionary public transport.

Operators using or considering bodycams should therefore test at least four points against the decision:

- whether the operator is acting as a federal body for the relevant activity;
- whether the governing statute specifies bodycam use, audio recording, activation triggers and onward disclosure with sufficient precision;
- whether the bodycams add to existing surveillance in a way that changes the severity of the interference; and
- whether internal policies, notices, access restrictions and deletion controls are being treated as safeguards rather than as the source of legal authority.

The FDPIC’s appeal proceedings before the Federal Administrative Court are the next legal step. Until that court decides the challenge, the 29 September decision remains non-final.