“IDA,” the Humanoid Apprentice: When a Robot Begins an Apprenticeship

Key Points at a Glance:

• Who: ID Logistics Germany, headquartered in Griesheim near Darmstadt, in collaboration with its technology partner Terra Robotics.
• What: A Unitree G1 Edu 6 humanoid robot, known internally as “IDA.”
• Current responsibilities: Sorting tasks and simple, supportive warehouse processes.
• Future Tasks: A testing platform for more complex steps such as packaging and order picking.
• Legal: No apprenticeship contract under the BBiG, no apprenticeship stipend, no registration with the IHK — IDA is a business resource.

What IDA Actually Does at the Camp

The robot was unveiled on July 7, 2026, in Wiesbaden at the “Future of Contract Logistics” event marking the 25th anniversary of ID Logistics Germany. Since then, a pilot project has been underway at the headquarters in Griesheim, where IDA is learning its first warehouse applications.

The scope of application has been deliberately kept narrow. IDA sorts and handles simple support processes—tasks that are programmed in collaboration with Terra Robotics and tested during operation.

In the future, the robot is intended to serve as a test platform for more demanding tasks, such as packaging or order picking.

Robin Otto, CEO of ID Logistics Germany, describes the project as follows: “By implementing AI and robotics, skilled workers are relieved of routine tasks and can focus more on their core responsibilities.”

The term “training” refers here to a technical process: movement sequences are learned, calibrated to the specific warehouse environment, and gradually expanded. This is similar to on-the-job training—with the difference that it does not result in a certificate of completion, but rather a software version.

Why this is not an apprenticeship contract under the BBiG

A vocational training agreement under the Vocational Training Act requires two contracting parties: a trainer and a trainee (Section 10 BBiG).

The trainee must be a natural person. According to § 1 of the German Civil Code (BGB), legal capacity begins at birth—under German law, a robot is not a person but a thing within the meaning of § 90 BGB and is therefore the property of the company.

This leads to the entire chain:

• No Contract: Without legal capacity, there can be no valid apprenticeship contract, nor can there be a written record pursuant to § 11 of the Vocational Training Act (BBiG).
• No Compensation: The requirement to provide appropriate training compensation (Section 17 of the Vocational Training Act (BBiG)) applies only to actual trainees.
• No registration: An apprenticeship is entered in the registry maintained by the competent authority (Section 34 BBiG)—there is no such registry for a machine.
• No Examination: There are no training regulations, no training curriculum, and no professional certification exam for humanoid robots.

ID Logistics doesn’t present it any differently either. “IDA” is a name and an image that makes a technical pilot project tangible. The metaphor only becomes problematic when it is confused with a real employment relationship in public debate—and that’s exactly where the truly interesting question begins.

The political question: Does the use of robots require its own set of rules?

As long as a robot is sorting items, it is legally considered a piece of equipment, just like a forklift. However, the more autonomously humanoid systems act, the more frequently the question arises as to who is responsible for their decisions and what rules govern their use in the workplace.

This debate is nothing new:

• The “electronic person”: In a 2017 resolution on civil law regulations in the field of robotics, the European Parliament called for a long-term review of whether autonomous robots should be granted their own legal status. In an open letter to the European Commission, approximately 160 experts from academia, business, and politics objected, arguing that the proposal significantly overestimated the technical capabilities of these systems. The idea was not pursued further.
• What will happen instead: The legal framework will be established through product and safety law, not through specific robot law: The EU Machinery Regulation (EU) 2023/1230 will apply directly in all member states as of January 20, 2027, and will replace the Machinery Directive 2006/42/EC—for the first time including explicit requirements for AI-enabled and connected machines. In addition, there is the EU AI Regulation and the recast Product Liability Directive.
• What already applies in the workplace today: The use of robots involves occupational safety (Industrial Safety Regulation, risk assessment, safety requirements for human-robot collaboration) and employee participation. If a robot leads to significant changes in workstations or work processes, the works council must be notified in accordance with Section 90 of the Works Constitution Act (BetrVG); if the system collects behavioral or performance data on employees, the right to co-determination under Section 87(1)(6) of the Works Constitution Act (BetrVG) applies.

The gap lies in between. Product safety law governs the machine, while labor law governs the people working alongside it—but so far, there is no framework for addressing the question of whether and how the replacement of jobs by autonomous systems should be managed at the societal level.

Proposals such as a levy on the use of robots (“robot tax”) have been discussed repeatedly but have not yet been implemented. There are good reasons to have this debate now, while the issue is still limited to a pilot project involving a sorting robot, rather than waiting until thousands of them are in operation.

Context: How Far Has the Technology Really Come?

The impression that humanoid robots are on the verge of widespread use is not supported by the available data. A study published by the Fraunhofer Institute for Material Flow and Logistics (IML) in conjunction with LogiMAT 2026 identifies around 80 available humanoid systems, but describes the market as highly fragmented and the technology as being in an early stage of development.

About three-quarters of the companies surveyed do not expect to put the technology to productive use until sometime in the coming decade.

What is noteworthy is the respondents’ expectations: Humanoid robots are predominantly viewed as a complement to human workers, not as a replacement—as flexible, universal automation for work environments that are designed for humans in the first place.

That is precisely where its economic appeal lies compared to traditional warehouse automation: there is no need to remodel a warehouse. However, the study also identifies prerequisites that are still lacking in Europe—safety standards for human-robot collaboration, open standards, and test beds.

The fact that the discussion about automation in retail extends beyond the warehouse is evident from parallel developments on the customer side: Even when it comes to shopping itself, AI agents are increasingly taking on tasks that were previously performed by humans.

Conclusion

IDA is a pilot project, not a personnel matter. The robot sorts, learns, and serves as a test platform. This does not constitute an apprenticeship under the BBiG, nor can it under current law. Nevertheless, the attention generated by the image of the “humanoid apprentice” is worthwhile: it draws attention to a regulatory gap that currently remains theoretical but is likely to become a practical issue in a few years.