Is

Coaching

Distance learning?

17. July 2025

from

Clemens Pfitzer

Is coaching distance learning? There have been and still are differing opinions on this question in case law. The Federal Court of Justice has now ruled on a number of issues relating to distance learning.

Is online coaching distance learning?

To date, there has been disagreement in case law and literature as to when and under what conditions coaching is or is not distance learning within the meaning of the German Distance Learning Protection Act (FernUSG). This is of great importance, because if an offer is subject to the FernUSG, the provider is obliged to obtain a license. If distance learning is offered without authorization, the contract is null and void. This means that the provider is no longer entitled to payment and any participation fees already paid can be reclaimed from the participant.

Essentially, the question is whether the FernUSG is applicable to “coaching” at all. Does coaching focus on the transfer of “knowledge and skills” or rather on individual and personal advice and support for the client? Many coaching offers are hybrid and contain elements of both areas, which makes it difficult to distinguish between the two. Does it make a difference whether the coaching is B2B or B2C? What does physical separation mean? Does this also apply to coaching via video conferencing? Until now, there has been disagreement between various courts on these questions. Now Federal Court of Justice has had the opportunity to provide some clarity.

The coaching case before the Federal Court of Justice

The subject of the proceedings before the Federal Court of Justice was a legal dispute concerning payment claims arising from a contract for a **”9-Month Business Mentoring Program Financial Fitness “**. This program was offered by a company that described itself as an academy. The program was designed to teach people entrepreneurial skills. The program description emphasized that the complete know-how of the two entrepreneurs would be passed on to the participants and that the program was based on efficient growth strategies built on a strong foundation: a strong mindset – the way successful entrepreneurs think and act. It was described as being packed with the know-how from practical experience in running and building a business and was designed to provide participants with a significant reduction in knowledge building, with the goal being implementation and results. Specific components of the program included bi-weekly online meetings, homework, clarification of questions in meetings, by email or in a Facebook group, as well as the possibility of two individual online sessions with a personal coach to resolve personal blockages. Intensive workshops on topics such as mindset and strategies were also planned for each semester. The regular online meetings were recorded and made available to the participants afterwards and there were instructional videos with lessons to work through. The program promised to provide participants with the basic requirements to create their financial freedom and build multiple streams of income . This comprehensive program was not approved under the FernUSG.

The Federal Court of Justice decision on coaching and distance learning

The Federal Court of Justice has been working with Judgment of 12.06.2025 – Ref. III ZR 109/24 made some clarifications regarding the applicability of the Distance Learning Protection Act (FernUSG) to coaching and mentoring programs.

The Federal Court of Justice has decided that the specific coaching program is distance learning in accordance with the FernUSG. In doing so, Federal Court of Justice has clarified a number of points that have been disputed in case law:

Applicability of the FernUSG also to B2B contracts

A central point of the ruling is the statement that the FernUSG is not limited to consumer contracts within the meaning of Section 13 BGB. Rather, it applies to all persons who conclude a distance learning contract, regardless of whether this is done for commercial or independent professional purposes. This is a departure from the view expressed in some case law and literature, which assumed a restriction to consumers. The Federal Court of Justice justifies this by stating that the legislator has not provided for such a restriction in the wording of the law and that the protection concept of the FernUSG is subject-related in order to protect all potential participants from unsuitable distance learning courses.

Asynchronous and synchronous knowledge transfer

The FernUSG requires an “exclusive or predominant physical separation between teacher and learner”. The Federal Court of Justice has clarified that synchronous online meetings, which are also recorded and subsequently made available to participants, are to be treated as asynchronous teaching. This is due to the fact that they can be viewed at any time and make synchronous participation unnecessary. If such asynchronous parts predominate (as in the present case through instructional videos, homework and recorded online meetings), the characteristic of spatial separation is also fulfilled in the case of a restrictive interpretation that also requires a time-delayed (asynchronous) presentation.

In the specific case, Federal Court of Justice also considered the transfer of knowledge to be clearly in the foreground, as learning objectives were predefined, repeated references were made to “knowledge”, “know-how” and “financial education”, the defendant referred to its division as an “academy” and group events were held. In contrast, the “individual online sessions with a personal coach to resolve personal blockages” did not carry any weight.

Monitoring the learning success

A further requirement for distance learning is that “the teacher or their representative monitors the learning success”. The Federal Court of Justice continues to interpret this characteristic very broadly: It is already fulfilled if, according to the contract, the learner is entitled, for example, to receive individual monitoring of learning success in an accompanying teaching event through oral questions on the learned material. A single learning check is sufficient. In the case to be decided, the Federal Court of Justice affirmed this, as the program description expressly provided for the possibility and the right to ask questions in online meetings, by email or in a Facebook group, which in any case also relate to the understanding of the learned material. The setting of homework can also be an indication of learning success monitoring. According to Federal Court of Justice, it is irrelevant whether the monitoring of learning success actually takes place; the decisive factor is that it is provided for in the contract.

Impact on the coaching industry and risks

The ruling by Federal Court of Justice has far-reaching consequences for the coaching industry:

• Extended scope of application of the FernUSG: Many coaching programs that were not previously considered “classic distance learning” could now fall under the FernUSG, even if they are aimed at companies or the self-employed.
• Approval requirement: If a program falls under the FernUSG, it requires state approval by the State Central Agency for Distance Learning (ZFU). Without this approval, a distance learning contract is null and void.

• Repayment claims: If the contract is null and void, the participants are entitled to a refund of the entire remuneration paid. The coaching providers must prove that the participants have saved corresponding expenses as a result of the services provided in order to assert a claim for compensation. This proof is often difficult to provide in practice.
• Lack of claims for compensation: Without proof of saved expenses, the provider is not entitled to compensation. This can mean considerable financial losses for providers who have already provided services.

Instructions for coaching providers

In view of this development, coaching providers should urgently review their offers and, if necessary, make adjustments to minimize legal risks:

Examination of the applicability of the FernUSG

• Content analysis: Does your program focus on imparting “knowledge and skills” (e.g. through predefined learning objectives, references to “knowledge” or “know-how”, designation as an “academy”)?
• Spatial separation: Does the knowledge transfer take place predominantly spatially separated (e.g. online modules, videos, tasks)? Please note that online sessions that are held synchronously but recorded can be considered asynchronous. Therefore, recordings should be avoided if possible.
• Monitoring of learning success: Does the contract provide for monitoring of learning success (e.g. through the right to ask questions about learning content, homework, tests)? A single monitoring option may be sufficient.

Adaptation of the offer

• Focus on individual advice: If you want to avoid the application of the FernUSG, you should focus more on individual and personal advice and support rather than standardized knowledge transfer. This requires a clear contractual and content-related structure.
• Reduction of standardized content: Minimize the amount of predefined learning objectives, instructional videos, fixed modules and standardized homework if you do not want to be subject to the FernUSG.
• No or minimal learning success control: If you are not seeking distance learning accreditation, you should not contractually provide any mechanisms for checking the “learned material”. Questions should then primarily relate to individual implementation or personal challenges, not to the monitoring of knowledge acquisition.
• Review and adaptation of contracts: Have your current program and contract documents checked and adapt your contracts and program descriptions precisely to the new legal situation in order to avoid misunderstandings and legal risks.

Approval as a distance learning provider

If your offer falls under the FernUSG and if adjustments that exclude applicability are not desired or possible, you should apply for approval from the ZFU. . A lack of admission leads to the nullity of the contract and thus to repayment claims by the participants.

Conclusion

We are happy to

advise you about

this topic!

Contact form

Call now!