On 29 September 2026, Switzerland's Federal Data Protection and Information Commissioner (FDPIC) closed its investigation into Baselland Transport AG (BLT). The order bans BLT from processing personal data through bodycams worn by ticket inspectors and requires it to delete the data already collected. The reasoning is narrow. According to Netzwoche's report on the ruling, the FDPIC found no legal basis for bodycams in the Passenger Transport Act or in other federal law. BLT disagrees with key parts of the ruling and has said it will appeal to the Federal Administrative Court. Because the appeal has suspensive effect, the cameras stay on in the meantime.
The strongest case for the regulator
The FDPIC's position deserves a fair hearing. Under the revised Federal Act on Data Protection, a federal body or a licensed operator performing public tasks generally needs a legal basis for processing personal data. This is a rule of legality and not a quirk of privacy law. BLT operates under a licence granted under the Federal Act on Passenger Transport, and the FDPIC's February 2026 announcement says that licence places BLT under its supervision. A camera worn by a state-licensed inspector who is checking tickets, and who may be confronting a passenger, is intrusive. If agencies could stretch general mandates to cover any new surveillance tool they found useful, the legality principle would mean little.
The FDPIC also did not dismiss BLT's concerns. As Netzwoche reports, it acknowledged BLT's interest in protecting staff and passengers. It held only that this interest does not on its own justify measures that infringe personality rights without a statutory footing.
What BLT actually deployed
The facts of the deployment cut against the picture of a surveillance programme. BLT has used the cameras since the end of January 2026 on its tram and bus network. According to Blick, the cameras sit in standby mode and overwrite any footage automatically after two minutes. Recording starts only when the inspector or a passenger manually activates it. Netzwoche reports that staff cannot view or delete recordings, that there is no live transmission, and that access is technically restricted and governed by binding rules.
BLT also points to a concrete use. After an attack on inspectors in April 2026, prosecutors used the footage in criminal proceedings. BLT relies on an external opinion by Professor Felix Uhlmann of the University of Zurich. It concludes that current law does not mention bodycams but permits them on the wording and purpose of existing provisions.
The design is not beyond criticism. A manual trigger can be disputed afterwards, and a two-minute buffer still captures bystanders. But these are questions of proportionality and safeguards, and a ban for want of a legal basis never reaches them. The FDPIC ruled on authority. It did not weigh BLT's actual safeguards against any measured harm.
The real problem is the statute
The ruling shows a legislative failure more than a regulatory one. Violence against transit staff is a recognised problem, and bodycams are a mainstream, narrowly tailored response. Yet a transport operator that moved in good faith, with a legal opinion behind it, found out after rollout that federal law was silent. That is an expensive way to learn that the statute lags the technology.
The Federal Council has seen the gap. According to Netzwoche, on 26 August 2026 it opened a consultation on a proposal to regulate bodycams in public transport explicitly. It would allow transit police and staff in driving, inspection and escort services to wear them. If adopted, the bill would give operators the clear legal basis the FDPIC found missing. It would also let Parliament set the conditions: when recording may start, retention limits, signage, access controls and audit duties. That is a better venue than litigation over how to read a general licensing law.
What the appeal will and won't settle
The Federal Administrative Court has tended to back the FDPIC's orders. In case A-2941/2024, decided on 6 October 2025, it dismissed an appeal against an FDPIC processing ban against the association Bürgerforum Schweiz. That case turned on proportionality, not on a missing legal basis, so it only loosely predicts the outcome here. It does suggest BLT should not assume that the "wording and purpose" argument will carry the day.
The suspensive effect is also sensible. Forcing a licensed operator to switch off safety equipment and delete evidence before a court has reviewed the legal question would be disproportionate in its own right. Deleted data cannot be restored if BLT wins. The courts will probably take years, and the consultation will probably conclude sooner.
The lesson for Swiss policy is practical. Regulators should apply the legality principle, as the FDPIC did, but legislators should not make operators guess. Where a tool is modest and carries documented safeguards, the proportionate response is to write the rules quickly and let the appeal run in parallel. A pro-innovation, pro-safety regime does not require a ban, and it does not require unlimited discretion for operators either. It requires a statute that says what is allowed and what is not.
What to watch
- Whether BLT files its appeal and how the Federal Administrative Court treats the "wording and purpose" argument.
- Whether the August consultation produces a bill that sets retention, signage and audit rules.
- Whether other Swiss operators using inspector cameras get the same scrutiny, or wait for the new law.