When people in Germany talk about digital identification, many think first of Video-Ident. According to the PwC 2026 study, one in two Germans has used it at least once – for example, when opening a direct banking account, taking out a mobile phone contract, or when a qualified electronic signature (QES) was required. However, this widespread use is not a measure of quality. Whilst Video-Ident was for a long time more convenient than other identification methods – as anyone could do it from home – it also became established because it was an early entrant to the market. It is comparable to the fax machine: the standard in German offices for decades, not because of its merits, but simply because everyone had one.
What video identification actually is
Most users are familiar with the process: you start a video session with a member of staff from the identification provider, hold your identity card up to the camera, turn it as instructed, show the security features and answer a few questions about yourself. At the end, you receive a TAN code or confirmation, and the identification process is complete. Typical use cases include opening accounts with direct banks, taking out mobile phone or insurance policies, and issuing qualified electronic signatures. The model has a fundamental limitation: every transaction requires a human agent on the other end. This means the process is tied to service hours – typically 7 am to 10 pm – to available staff and to operational processes that cannot be scaled up at short notice. As the volume of identity verification increases, so do shift planning and staff costs.
Four structural weaknesses
Costs and scalability
A video call involving human staff is more expensive than an automated process – often many times over. Identification via Video-Ident is, for example, up to 1,800 per cent more expensive than via other identification methods such as eID-Ident. And the costs are incurred per identification: the more identifications carried out, the more agent hours and infrastructure are required. With volumes fluctuating widely, this becomes a business problem – either providers have to keep staff on standby for peak times (expensive during normal operations) or queues form (expensive in terms of conversion rates). For companies with growing identification needs, both scenarios are unattractive.
User experience
Waiting times for available agents, camera issues on the desktop, being forced to switch to a mobile device – and then the process being interrupted mid-flow with data loss. The figures are clear: case studies show abandonment rates of up to 40 per cent. Only 11 per cent of users find video identification ‘very user-friendly’. For a process whose primary purpose is supposed to be seamless customer onboarding, these figures are hard to ignore.
Compliance gaps
Anyone assessing identity verification procedures from a regulatory perspective today will encounter a significant drawback: video identification does not include automatic checks against PEP or sanctions lists. Compared with more modern, automated procedures that have integrated these checks, this represents a structural shortcoming – particularly in the context of stricter anti-money laundering requirements.
Security risks
In 2022, the Chaos Computer Club (CCC) demonstrated in a detailed analysis that video identification procedures can be circumvented using alarmingly simple means – specifically: open-source software and a little red watercolour paint. Six different providers were outwitted; in one case, this even led to access to a test subject’s electronic health record. As a direct consequence, Gematik suspended the procedure for health insurance funds. This is therefore not a theoretical residual risk, but a documented incident with regulatory consequences.
A procedure on its way to becoming obsolete
From a regulatory perspective, too, the outlook for video identification is bleak. The Federal Ministry of Finance and BaFin now describe it as a ‘bridge technology’ – useful during a transitional phase, but not for the future. This trend is reinforced by the new EU Anti-Money Laundering Regulation (AMLR, Regulation 2024/1624), which, from July 2027, will set harmonised KYC (Know Your Customer) and CDD (Customer Due Diligence) requirements for all EU Member States and, through the AMLA, establish a dedicated supervisory authority. Identity providers whose processes already incorporate automated PEP and sanctions list checks are well-prepared for this environment. Video-Ident is generally not. The regulatory framework leads to three methods that the AMLR designates as permissible: eID systems such as the Online-Ausweis, the EUDI Wallet and qualified trust services (including QES). All three are linked to the eIDAS 2.0 assurance levels ‘substantial’ or ‘high’.
What works instead
Three alternatives dominate the market – each with different strengths and areas of application.
Photo-Ident (automated document identification).
Instead of a human agent, the verification is carried out by software: the identity document is captured using a smartphone camera, and security features such as holograms, microprint, the MRZ and, where applicable, the NFC chip are verified automatically. A liveness check ensures that a real person is standing in front of the camera – not a photo or video. AML compliance is established through the provision of an IBAN, the granting of a direct debit mandate and a signature via QES. The advantages: available round the clock, no waiting times, integrated compliance checks (PEP and sanctions list checks), GDPR-compliant, completed in seconds rather than minutes. For many B2B use cases – onboarding, contract conclusion, KYC, KYB – photo ID is now the standard, practical procedure.
eID (online ID function)
Die eID nutzt den NFC-Chip im deutschen Personalausweis oder elektronischem Aufenthaltstitel und kryptografische Verfahren, um eine Identität mit dem höchsten verfügbaren Vertrauensniveau (eIDAS „hoch”) nachzuweisen. Kein Foto, kein Video, kein Agent – stattdessen ein direkter, manipulationssicherer Datenaustausch zwischen Ausweis und Diensteanbieter. Das Verfahren ist regulatorisch unangefochten, staatlich ausgegeben und für sicherheitskritische Anwendungen die Referenzlösung. Die Hürde liegt nicht in der Technik, sondern in der Nutzeradoption: Laut PwC-Studie 2026 ist die eID zwar 73 % der Bürger:innen bekannt, aber nur etwa jede:r Fünfte nutzt sie aktiv. Wer sie einsetzt, gewinnt Sicherheit; wer ausschließlich auf sie setzt, verliert potenziell Reichweite.
EUDI-Wallet (European Digital Identity Wallet)
The EUDI Wallet is the next regulatory step – enshrined in the eIDAS 2.0 Regulation and set to be rolled out gradually across the EU from 2026/2027. The concept: citizens store their identity documents and other attributes (driving licence, student ID, professional qualifications) in a wallet app on their smartphone and decide for themselves which information to share with a service provider – keyword: selective disclosure. For businesses, this means interoperable identity verification across all 27 EU Member States, in a data-protection-friendly manner, with a high level of trust and without any disruption to the user experience. What these methods have in common is that they operate without agents, without waiting times and without restricted service hours. Which method is suitable in each individual case depends on the use case, the regulatory requirements and the target group. But each of them solves structural problems that Video-Ident fails to address due to its very nature.
Conclusion
Anyone asking about video identification is actually asking for something else: a secure, seamless, digital identity verification process. That is what video identification once was – by the standards of the time. But the benchmark has shifted. Anyone setting up new identity processes or reviewing existing ones today should not ask which method is best known. Instead, they should ask which method is actually fit for the future.
