The protection of individual privacy does not make exceptions even within the walls of the home or among members of the same family unit. A recent ruling by the Supreme Court (Cass. 9222/2026) clarifies that spying on a parent to gather evidence of their infidelity exposes the children to serious legal consequences. There is no justification that allows the violation of another’s privacy in the name of defending the marital relationship or discovering the truth about an alleged betrayal.
The general principle is clear: every individual—regardless of family ties—retains the inviolable right to the secrecy of their communications. Even when one spouse violates duties of fidelity, this does not authorise others to use unlawful interception tools. Personal dignity and privacy always prevail over private conflicts.
The right to privacy withstands the spouse’s infidelity
Family relationships do not justify intrusions into another person’s private sphere. In the case examined, the judges rejected the arguments of children who had secretly recorded their father while speaking with his partner.
The defence claimed that marital duties such as fidelity and solidarity should outweigh the right to confidentiality. However, the courts reaffirmed that family solidarity is based on mutual respect and equal dignity. A breach of marital duties does not strip a person of their fundamental rights.
Even an unfaithful spouse continues to be protected by law against unauthorised recordings. Infidelity does not lead to a loss of privacy.
Interceptions between people in the same place are also illegal
The ruling also clarifies an important point about technology. The children had placed a recording device inside a car used by their father. The Court confirmed that this conduct constitutes a criminal offence, even though the conversations occurred between people physically present together (art. 617-bis c.p.).
The law protects all forms of communication, including those that take place in person. It is irrelevant who owns the vehicle or the location where the recording occurs. Installing a device to capture conversations without consent is unlawful in any case.
For example, hiding a recorder in a car to listen to private conversations fully falls within the scope of criminal liability.
Liability also applies to indirect or “accidental” recordings
The Court also addressed situations where recordings may occur through technological systems such as Bluetooth or automatic device connections. Even if the recording is not entirely manual, liability still exists when there is an intention to monitor someone.
Using technological tools for family-related purposes does not justify breaching privacy. In this case, the decisive factor was the deliberate installation of a system designed to control the father’s behaviour.
In summary, the law establishes that:
- privacy is a fundamental individual right, even within families;
- recording conversations without consent is a criminal offence, including in-person conversations;
- family conflicts do not justify unlawful conduct;
- all recording methods, including indirect or technological ones, are subject to the same strict rules.
VGS Family Lawyers is a law firm that offers assistance to English-speaking clients with interests in Italy. In case you need assistance, please write to: info@vgslawyers.com