Coaching
not without
authorization?
Coaching
not without
authorization?
from
Federal Court of Justice confirms once again: e-commerce coaching is subject to the Distance Learning Protection Act and requires approval.
E-Commerce Master Club without admission
Distance learning and coaching have been occupying German courts for some time now. The Federal Court of Justice made a fundamental decision on this topic back in June 2025(we reported). The central point of the underlying disputes is the applicability of the FernUSG to coaching contracts and the question of their effectiveness.
The specific case concerned a contract for the “E-Commerce Master Club”, for which the provider demanded a fee of EUR 7,140. The program included lifelong access to a video course with six modules, three weekly coaching calls over twelve months, VIP email support and access to a Facebook group. The contract was intended to provide participants with knowledge in various areas of e-commerce. There was no approval according to FernUSG.
Federal Court of Justice sets out criteria for coaching
In its ruling of 2 October 2025 (case no. III ZR 173/24), the Federal Court of Justice confirmed its case law and once again specified the requirements for online coaching programs under the applicability of the German Distance Learning Protection Act (FernUSG).
No ‘minimum quality’ of knowledge or skills of any kind is required.
The Federal Court of Justice stated unequivocally that the contract falls under the FernUSG and is null and void due to a lack of approval. The decisive factor here was the broad interpretation of the term “imparting knowledge and skills”. Practically usable knowledge also falls under the scope of protection, as do offers without systematic didactic preparation.
With regard to physical separation, the Federal Court of Justice again found that the focus of the contract was on the asynchronous video courses that could be accessed for life, not on the synchronous coaching calls, which could only be accessed for 12 months. Interestingly, the Federal Court of Justice did not make any specific statement in this decision on the element of “predominantly physical separation” in the case of coaching calls in the form of video conferences – it expressly left open whether this element is generally fulfilled. The Federal Court of Justice found that the contractual law to ask questions was sufficient to monitor learning success – regardless of whether this monitoring actually takes place.
The Federal Court of Justice reaffirmed its case law from June 2025 that the FernUSG also applies to B2B contracts. The need for protection exists regardless of consumer status, especially when offers are aimed at start-ups.
Conclusion
The ruling once again confirms that online coaching programs can be subject to approval as distance learning, regardless of whether the service is referred to as “coaching”, “mentoring” or “master course”. Without approval, the contract may be null and void and all remuneration may be reclaimed. Coaching providers should therefore have their programs legally checked and design offers in such a way that the focus is clearly on individual advice and less on any kind of knowledge transfer.
We are happy to
advise you about
Coaching!
