Tenant Evidence: Algorithmic Bias in Germany

As a tenant in Germany, you may be affected by decisions based on algorithmic processing — for example automatic payment notices, risk scorings or profiling by landlords and property managers. This article explains in plain language which types of evidence help when you suspect algorithmic bias, which laws and courts are relevant, and which forms you can use. We show concrete steps for documentation, how to meet deadlines and where to get support. The goal is to enable you to enforce your rights under rental law practically and to collect evidence so that the Amtsgericht, Landgericht or even higher instances can examine your objections.

What does algorithmic bias mean for tenants?

Algorithmic bias occurs when automatic systems systematically treat certain people worse. For tenants this can mean: unfair rejections in re-renting, incorrect billing or automatic termination notices. The legal foundations for tenant obligations and rights are in the BGB §§ 535–580a ^[1], and procedural rules are in the ZPO ^[2]. Courts responsible for disputed rental matters are usually the Amtsgerichte ^[3]; for fundamental questions the BGH may decide ^[5].

How tenants can prove algorithmic bias

• Collect evidence: tenancy agreement, emails, screenshots, log files, photos and other documents as evidence.
• Keep payment records: all rent receipts, debits and refunds with dates and amounts (rent).
• Note deadlines and times: when decisions or changes occurred (deadline).
• Secure forms and letters: official notices, reminders or termination letters as form.
• Document witness contacts: neighbors, caretakers or conversation notes as contact.

Forms and authorities

There is no single "rental-bias" form, but useful templates and letters exist. A commonly used template is the termination-letter sample from the Federal Ministry of Justice ^[4], which shows what a formally effective termination should include. For an eviction suit you generally submit a complaint to the competent Amtsgericht; precise forms and guidance are available from judicial authorities. If you need interim relief, there are special motions under the ZPO ^[2].

Courts and legal foundations

Disputes about evidentiary issues and terminations are usually heard first at the Amtsgericht ^[3]. Procedural law follows the ZPO ^[2]. Fundamental interpretations of tenancy law are covered by the BGB §§ 535–580a ^[1], and revisions may be decided by the Bundesgerichtshof ^[5]. When algorithmic decisions are involved, it is important to document data origins, the criteria used and the decision logic.

Practical example

Anna suddenly receives an automatic reminder with a wrongly calculated balance. She saves the reminder, screenshots her account transactions, notes the time of the portal change and preserves emails with the landlord. With these records she sends a formal complaint and requests correction before taking legal steps.

FAQ

How do I start if I suspect algorithmic bias?

Begin by collecting all relevant documents, screenshots and payment records; document times and parties involved.

Can tenants request information about algorithms?

You can request information about data-driven decisions; exact rights depend on data protection and contract rules.

Which court is responsible?

Usually the Amtsgericht at the place of residence for rental disputes; for fundamental legal questions the Landgericht or BGH may decide.

How-To

1. Collect evidence: copy the contract, emails, screenshots and log files as evidence.
2. File a formal complaint: send a formal notice to the landlord or management and request correction.
3. If no agreement, file a complaint at the competent Amtsgericht.
4. Observe deadlines: note deadlines for objections and filing and record all dates.

Help and Support

• Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch (BGB) and other laws
• Federal Ministry of Justice (templates and guidance)
• Federal Court of Justice (BGH) decisions

1. [1] Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch (BGB) – gesetze-im-internet.de
2. [2] Zivilprozessordnung (ZPO) – gesetze-im-internet.de
3. [3] Competent Amtsgerichte – justiz.de
4. [4] Federal Ministry of Justice – bmj.de
5. [5] Bundesgerichtshof (BGH) – bundesgerichtshof.de