Introduction
We have all, to a greater or lesser extent, invited an assistant into our daily lives. That vacuum cleaner that moves around the living room on its own, that robot that cooks our food for us, or a connected voice that waits patiently for us to call on it. The rise of so-called “autonomous” domestic robots marks a new stage in the integration of digital technologies into the private sphere.
Originally designed as simple everyday helpers, these robots are gradually expanding their scope of action to the point where we now delegate entire areas of our domestic activities to them.
The NEO robot, developed by 1X Technologies, is a particularly revealing case in this regard. After a sensational keynote speech in October 2025, it is set to go on sale in the United States in 2026, with a European market launch announced for 2027. This difference in timing immediately raises an important legal question: can a product designed and launched in a more flexible legal environment be marketed in Europe? Indeed, the European framework is characterized by high standards of privacy and personal data protection.
Beyond the specific case of NEO, the arrival of domestic robots on the European market raises questions about the ability of existing law to regulate technologies that combine continuous presence, data capture, and interaction with the human environment. It invites us to question the current limits of the legal framework, including the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), and the balance to be found between technological innovation and the effective preservation of privacy within the home.
The emergence of domestic robots in a legally protected space
European law grants special protection to the home, understood as the heart of private life. Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, like Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, enshrines the right to respect for private and family life and home. The case law of the European Court of Human Rights[1] consistently emphasizes the central nature of this space, which enjoys a higher level of protection than places open to the public or professional environments.
The home is not only a physical space protected by law, but also a place of retreat, privacy, and relaxation, where individuals can escape the gaze of others and freely engage in their most ordinary behaviors. It is precisely this dimension, made up of routine gestures, habits, and family interactions, that robots like NEO capture. The introduction of a domestic robot capable of moving freely within the home therefore raises questions about the very nature of interference. It no longer takes the form of an exceptional intrusion, but is part of a continuous presence integrated into everyday life.
A human teleoperation
The legal issues surrounding domestic robots are exacerbated when remote human intervention is involved. In the case of NEO, this intervention is based on a structured system: human operators named 1X Expert, physically located in the United States, supervise certain tasks performed by the robot using a virtual reality headset, accessing the visual feeds captured by the robot’s two on-board cameras[2]. This is known as Expert mode.
From a personal data law perspective, such access necessarily constitutes a processing of personal data within the meaning of Article 4 of the GDPR. A person can be identified “directly” by their surname, first name, email address, etc., or “indirectly” by cookies, preferences, voice, or image. Images of the interior of the home, voices, behaviors, or lifestyle habits of the occupants are likely to enable their direct or indirect identification. In this regard, it does not matter that faces are blurred, as the manufacturer claims. The classification of personal data is not limited to facial features and encompasses all information relating to an identifiable person in their living environment. The viewing and handling of this data by a human operator therefore qualify as a processing.
The principles of the GDPR tested by domestic robots
The deployment of domestic robots such as NEO directly confronts several fundamental principles of the GDPR.
The principle of data minimization (Article 5 of the GDPR) requires that only strictly necessary data be processed. However, even though 1X Technologies claims that certain data from the sensors can be transmitted without being stored when the robot is operating in autonomous mode, broad and continuous perception of the environment remains central to the robot’s operation. The distinction between “unstored” data and “no processing” must be handled with caution in this regard, as the GDPR applies from the moment data is collected and consulted, regardless of whether it is stored.
The question of the legal basis for processing (Article 6 of the GDPR) also appears to be important. The user’s consent, required to activate Expert mode, may appear to formally satisfy the requirements of the GDPR. However, its free and informed nature may be discussed when refusal to share certain data results in a significant limitation of the robot’s functionality. Moreover , a particularly sensitive aspect concerns the collection of data related to non-contracting third parties. While the user may consent (Article 7 of the GDPR) to the activation of Expert mode, other occupants of the home, such as children, other family members, or visitors, must also be informed in a clear and unambiguous manner and, where applicable, give their consent. For this reason, the simple visual signal provided by the robot when a human operator is activated appears insufficient to meet the GDPR’s requirements for transparency and protection of the individuals concerned.
Added to these difficulties, the cross-border nature of data processing and the involvement of human operators located outside of the European Union raise significant challenges in terms of transparency and accountability. In practice, data subjects may have limited visibility over by whom their data are processed. While supervisory authorities may face difficulties in effectively enforcing GDPR obligations against entities established outside the EU (Article 49 of the GDPR). These are already highly complex issues, which the law is struggling to address.
Domestic robots and the future of privacy
Beyond the case of the NEO robot, domestic robots raise questions about the evolution of privacy in our societies. The introduction of technologies that are permanently present and that operate almost continuously inside the home is contributing to a progressive redefinition of the boundaries of privacy.
Shoshana Zuboff’s analyses of surveillance capitalism[3] offer a framework for understanding this phenomenon. More broadly, the increasing deployment of domestic technologies contributes to the normalisation of intrusive data collection practices into private homes, historically protected spaces. Furthermore, the data processed by these devices is often highly confidential, even intimate, and could be traded for money by companies. Domestic robots and similar technologies represent a particularly valuable resource for advertisers willing to pay for access to this data in order to provide highly targeted advertising services.
At the same time, the European legal framework itself is changing. Current discussions around the “Digital Omnibus” project, which aims to simplify and adjust several key pieces of digital legislation, including the GDPR, reflecting a growing tension between the goals of innovation and the effective protection of fundamental rights. In this regulatory context, the compatibility of advanced domestic robots with European law goes beyond the specific case of NEO and raises a more general question about the future of our rights.
Conclusion
The NEO case does not allow us to assert that domestic robots are inherently illegal under European law. However, it does highlight serious and structural compliance issues. More broadly, it raises questions about the ability of the current legal framework to protect privacy at a time when the privacy of the home is becoming a new arena for technological innovation.
[1] CEDH, Moreno Gómez c. Espagne, no 4143/02, § 53. Giacomelli c. Italie, 2 novembre 2006, req. n° 59909/00 § 76
[2] https://www.1x.tech/neo FAQ « will my Neo be fully autonomous ? »
[3] Zuboff, S. (2019). The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The Fight for a Human Future at the New Frontier of Power.
Suggested citation:
Sonia Da Costa Alves and Thoma Le Goff, ‘Domestic robots and the right to privacy: the case of NEO by 1X Technologies’ (Comparative Digital Law Blog, 04 February 2026) <https://lawandtech.ie/domestic-robots-and-the-right-to-privacy-the-case-of-neo-by-1x-technologies>.
About the authors:
Sonia da Costa Alves is a digital law student with a passion for new technologies. She holds a bachelor’s degree in law from Paris Panthéon-Assas University and a university degree in International and European law from L’institut des Hautes Études Internationales. She is currently pursuing a master’s degree in digital law at Paris Nanterre University. Her work focuses on the legal framework for a secure, ethical digital environment that respects fundamental rights.
Thomas Le Goff is Assistant Professor of Law & Technology at Télécom Paris – Institut Polytechnique de Paris, where he conducts pluridisciplinary research projects on the regulation of digital technologies, cybersecurity and AI. His research focuses on the links between AI and sustainability, from a legal and public policy perspective. Thomas is also a Research Fellow at the Centre on Regulation in Europe (Brussels), where he contributes to policy debates at the intersection between digital, energy and environmental regulations.
