Distance Learning Act
soon to be
history?
Distance Learning Act
soon to be
history?
from
Standards Control Council calls for the abolition of the FernUSG: The outdated law is now a bureaucratic burden that is no longer practicable for anyone.
Consumer protection vs. bureaucracy
The Distance Learning Protection Act from 1977 is no longer up to the digital reality of today – with consequences for providers and authorities.
At the heart of the problem is the extremely broad definition of distance learning. The Federal Court of Justice now considers almost every form of digital knowledge transfer to be potentially subject to licensing. This becomes particularly clear in the ruling of June 12, 2025 (III ZR 109/24): Even contracts between companies are to fall under the FernUSG. A decision that runs counter to the original consumer protection intention of the law. At the same time, the courts interpret key legal terms such as “knowledge transfer”, “spatial separation” and “learning success control” so broadly that virtually any online offer with knowledge transfer can be classified as distance learning subject to approval – from online coaching to fee-based guides.
Standards Control Council reacts
The National Regulatory Control Council has responded to this problem with a clear recommendation: the FernUSG should be abolished. The central justification is that consumer protection has long been sufficiently warranted by modern general consumer protection law. Providers suffer from enormous compliance costs, loss of earnings during long approval procedures and a disadvantaged position compared to foreign competitors. The Central Office for Distance Learning, with just under 30 employees, is overstretched in terms of personnel. It is estimated that millions of distance learning courses that are potentially subject to approval are deliberately or out of ignorance not approved – with only 5,000 registered courses.
The law is not practicable due to the prevalence of online courses and unclear legal terms.
The Regulatory Control Council envisages a compromise with regard to termination rights: The consumer-friendly deadlines of the FernUSG should be incorporated into the BGB in order to appropriately regulate complex services with knowledge transfer. The didactic, independent quality control of distance learning courses regulated in the FernUSG, as currently carried out by the ZFU, should be voluntary for course providers in the opinion of the Nomenkontrollrat.
Conclusion
The reform of the Distance Learning Protection Act is no longer optional – it is necessary. The outdated law no longer reflects the reality of digitalization. The recommendation of the Regulatory Control Council is therefore to be welcomed, as it takes digital progress into account without neglecting consumer protection.
We are happy to
advise you about
Coaching!
