Discussions surrounding the German Distance Learning Protection Act (FernUSG), which has been in effect since 1976, have gained momentum again in recent years in Germany. The reason is the growing popularity of online coaching. While remote coaching has already existed in some forms for over 30 years, the range of available services has since expanded significantly, particularly following the onset of the pandemic. For example, online business coaches use live video conferencing and pre-recorded videos to impart knowledge to their customers and provide guidance on how to establish a successful business.
Why online coaching in Germany now faces requirements of the German Distance Learning Protection Act (FernUSG)
In spring 2023 however, the German Higher Regional Court of Celle (OLG Celle) issued a ruling that curbed the unbridled success of online coaching, determining that it qualifies as distance learning and is therefore subject to the FernUSG (OLG Celle – Judgment of March 1, 2023 – 3 U 85/22). Several other higher regional courts adopted the same approach. As a result, countless previously concluded coaching contracts were rendered void due to the absence of approval from the German State Central Office for Distance Learning (ZFU). Customers were entitled not only to discontinue their payments but also to recover fees already paid. In June 2025, the German Federal Court of Justice (BGH) addressed the applicability of the FernUSG to online coaching and determined that the FernUSG extends not only to consumers but also to entrepreneurs (BGH – Judgment of June 12, 2025 – III ZR 109/24). This interpretation was reaffirmed by the German Federal Court of Justice (BGH) in October 2025 (BGH – Judgment of October 2, 2025 – III ZR 173/24), further broadening the scope of the FernUSG.
The following article seeks to answer questions about the scope of application, the procedure, expected costs, and penalties associated with the FernUSG.
Scope of the FernUSG: When does German Distance Learning Law apply to Online Coaching?
The FernUSG applies to providers of distance learning courses. The term is to be interpreted broadly, covering any contractual and remunerated transfer of knowledge and skills, regardless of quality or content.
In the context of online coaching, the initial challenge may already arise with the criterion of knowledge and skills transfer. Coaching contracts often integrate aspects of both instructional delivery and personalized consultation. Even after the ruling by the German Federal Court of Justice (BGH), it remains uncertain to what extent such agreements fall within the scope of the FernUSG. The FernUSG does not apply when only consulting services are offered. In cases involving hybrid contracts, the predominant focus of the service appears to be determinative. Where knowledge transfer constitutes the primary component, the FernUSG remains relevant; conversely, if knowledge transfer assumes a subsidiary role, the arrangement does not qualify as distance learning. However, a definitive resolution from the highest court on this matter has yet to be established. In practice, this means that coaching concepts that primarily convey structured knowledge, supported by learning materials or video content, are more likely to fall within the scope of the FernUSG, whereas contracts focused mainly on individualized consulting are less likely to qualify as distance learning.
Secondly, the teaching must predominantly (i.e., more than half of the time) take place with physical separation and – according to the ZFU and prevailing case law – asynchronously. The criterion of physical separation serves to distinguish distance learning from traditional classroom teaching. The criterion of asynchrony demands that participants complete the course independently and at their own pace, e.g., by means of videos on demand. Webinars that can only be attended live (i.e., “synchronously”) and for which no recordings or other learning materials are provided (i.e., that serve as direct instruction) are not covered by the FernUSG according to prevailing opinion. However, some higher regional courts have deemed the criterion of physical distance to be sufficient. In any case, webinars or “live calls” fall under the FernUSG if they are offered in addition to asynchronous knowledge transfer and the focus is on asynchronous distance learning.
Finally, regular learning progress checks must take place. Here, too, the German Federal Court of Justice (BGH) applies a broad interpretation of the term and maintains relatively moderate requirements. According to its case law, it is sufficient if participants are contractually entitled to receive feedback on their learning progress from the instructor or their representative, e.g., in the form of (oral) questions during classes. Whether these checks then actually take place is irrelevant; what is crucial is that the contract or program description allows for the possibility of receiving feedback. In practice, many online coaching models will meet these requirements more quickly than expected, as even optional feedback opportunities and a largely self-paced learning structure may already be sufficient to trigger FernUSG applicability.
Does the FernUSG also apply to B2B coaching contracts?
Up until now, there has also been an ongoing discussion regarding whether the FernUSG applies exclusively to B2C contracts or also encompasses B2B transactions. The German Federal Court of Justice (BGH) has recently provided clarification, indicating that the term “participant” under the FernUSG should be interpreted broadly to include entrepreneurs. Consequently, this term is not synonymous with the narrower consumer definition established by the German Civil Code (BGB). In making this determination, the German Federal Court of Justice (BGH) has departed from the predominant opinion presented in legal scholarship.
Legal consequences of FernUSG application: rights of participants and obligations of coaches
The application of the FernUSG means a significant improvement in the legal position of participants. While the coaching contract, which is usually limited in time, cannot be terminated or revoked under the general rules of the BGB, the FernUSG contains a right of revocation and termination for participants. The contract is revocable under the rules of the BGB and can be terminated with six weeks’ notice in the first six months and with three months’ notice after the end of the first six months.
Before offering their distance learning course, coaches must apply for approval from the ZFU. If the content or objective of the distance learning course is solely for leisure or entertainment (so-called hobby courses), it is sufficient to notify the ZFU of the course. The primary criterion for this determination is whether the course is designed to provide professional or technical qualifications. In case of doubt, the course should at least be notified to the ZFU, which will then decide whether notification is sufficient or whether approval is required.
FernUSG approval process: How to obtain ZFU authorization and what it costs
To obtain approval for their course, providers must select the appropriate application form on the ZFU website (see https://zfu.de/veranstaltende/zulassung), fill it out digitally, and submit the application by email to the ZFU via poststelle@zfu.nrw.de. The application must include all teaching materials, the course description, the learning objectives, information about the teachers, and a sample of the participant agreement. The ZFU then assesses the structure of the course from an educational perspective, particularly examining whether the learning objectives, teaching methods, and materials are logically and effectively coordinated. The ZFU also verifies that the course complies with legal requirements, particularly those relating to consumer protection.
Once all documents have been submitted, approval usually takes up to three months. Should the ZFU fail to issue a decision within three months of receiving the complete application, the application is automatically considered approved. The approval remains valid provided there are no substantial modifications to the course content or structure. The ZFU conducts a review every three years.
The fee payable by the provider varies depending on the type and scope of the course. The fee is based on an official fee table and amounts to 150% of the course fee, with a minimum fee of EUR 1,050.00. However, the ZFU charges a lower fee for inexpensive courses: if the sales price is less than EUR 250.00, a fee of EUR 525.00 is payable, and if the price is less than EUR 100.00, a fee of EUR 262.50 is payable. Provisional approvals for courses that have not yet been fully designed cost 200% of the sales price and a minimum of EUR 1,050.00. For the so-called continuity review, which usually takes place every three years, the ZFU charges 30% of the sales price and, in the event of significant changes to the course, 50% of the sales price. Obtaining the latter therefore requires the provider to pay only half the cost that would be necessary for a new approval.
If a course is only subject to notification, the provider must send all necessary materials and documents to the above-mentioned email address. A fee of EUR 100.00 is payable for this, and EUR 50.00 for each additional review.
Legal risks of non-compliance: Invalid contracts, refunds and fines under the FernUSG
If a provider offers a course that requires approval without the appropriate approval, any contracts concluded with participants are void. Participants can then reclaim any course fees already paid. In addition, the ZFU can impose fines of up to EUR 10,000.
Violations of the notification requirement, on the other hand, do not render the contracts concluded void, meaning that participants are not entitled to any claims for reimbursement. The ZFU may nevertheless impose a fine of up to EUR 1,000.
If the provider mistakenly assumes that their course is only subject to the notification requirement, the ZFU will point out the approval requirement after notification has been made. If the notification is not made and it subsequently transpires that the course is subject to approval, contracts concluded are also void and the aforementioned fines may be imposed.
Refund claims in void online coaching contracts: when do participants get their money back?
If a contract is void due to a lack of the legally required approval, the provider cannot base a claim for remuneration on it. Any payments already made must therefore be refunded in accordance with the rules of the law of unjust enrichment (Section 812 (1) sentence 1 alternative 1 German Civil Code (BGB).
In practice, providers can usually argue that participants have already had access to learning materials and have (partially) made use of the coaching services. This may entitle them to compensation for the services provided due to the void contract in accordance with Sections 812 (1) sentence 1 Alt. 1, 818 (2) BGB, which can be offset against the claim for reimbursement. This applies at least to contracts concluded before the ruling of the German Federal Court of Justice (BGH) was announced. For contracts concluded after the announcement, the objection of bad faith is likely to apply. Whether this applies only to course providers or also to participants is a matter of fact that must be clarified at trial.
According to the German Federal Court of Justice (BGH – Judgment of June 12, 2025 – III ZR 109/24), the determining factor for such a compensation claim is whether and to what extent the participant actually obtained a financial advantage. In this respect, a balance sheet analysis is decisive in comparing the respective advantages and disadvantages in order to determine whether an economic surplus has been achieved. This is usually the case if the participant would otherwise have had to commission an authorized third party to perform the service and pay a corresponding fee. The purpose of compensation is to prevent the participant from gaining an unjustified financial advantage from the void contract (BGH, loc. cit.).
In the case of services, any compensation is calculated based on the usual or, alternatively, the reasonable remuneration that the recipient of the service has saved but not exceeding the agreed remuneration. The determining factor is the objective market value of the service provided.
The result is a two-stage evaluation: First, it is necessary to assess whether the participant used the services to such an extent that their situation is comparable to that of someone who has engaged an alternative, legally authorized provider. If so, the second step is to calculate the exact amount of compensation based on the usual or reasonable amount of remuneration that was saved (AG Paderborn – Judgment of September 5, 2025 – 57a C 183/24). In all cases, the provider must prove the existence and amount of the compensation (BGH, judgment of June 12, 2025 – III ZR 109/24).
To whom should repayment claims be addressed?
Repayment claims must always be directed against the party that received the payment without legal grounds. Therefore, it is necessary to determine who became the participant’s contractual partner or who can be regarded as the recipient of the payment under the law of unjust enrichment. Depending on the contractual arrangement, this will usually be the coach themselves. However, the contractual partner may also be a sales or brokerage platform through which contracts for online coaching are concluded, even if the platform does not provide coaching services itself, but rather various third-party providers (the coaches) do.
The OLG Celle (OLG Celle – Judgment of July 9, 2025 – 24 U 12/25) has clarified that this determination primarily hinges on which party is regarded by participants as the responsible contractual partner. If the platform acts as an independent provider vis-à-vis the participants, concludes the contracts in its own name, regulates the general terms and conditions, and accepts payments, it can be regarded as a contractual partner. In this case, it is also subject to the consequences of civil law, e.g., the obligation to reimburse payments if the contract is void.
Conclusion: FernUSG becomes a key compliance issue for online coaching providers in Germany
With the increasing popularity of digital coaching services, a long-neglected law has once again become the focus of legal debate. Recent rulings by the German Federal Court of Justice (BGH) have established that the FernUSG applies to a much greater range of services than previously assumed. As a result, the legal position of participants has been significantly strengthened, while providers are faced with new regulatory requirements. For coaches, this means that it is essential to carefully review their programs and, if necessary, have them approved by the ZFU to avoid legal risks. In light of the continuing questions of interpretation, particularly regarding the distinction between consulting and teaching services, it is advisable to notify the ZFU at an early stage or consult with them in case of uncertainty.
[View source.]
