Online-Coaching
photos and
Distance learning.
Online-Coaching
photos and
Distance learning.
from
Federal Court of Justice sharpens the distinction. The decision now also focuses on the characteristic of spatial separation.
Wann ist Online-Coaching “Fernunterricht”?
The Distance Learning Protection Act (FernUSG) requires providers of distance learning to be state-approved. If this is not the case, the contract is null and void under the FernUSG – with the result that any remuneration paid can be reclaimed. Since the boom in online coaching, courts have been arguing about whether digital courses should be classified as distance learning at all. The higher regional courts have so far been divided: While OLG Celle, OLG Stuttgart and OLG Dresden qualified any location-independent online teaching as distance learning, OLG Munich and OLG Nuremberg demanded an asynchronous character of the knowledge transfer. A clarification by the highest court was long overdue.
The case decided by the Federal Court of Justice concerned a high-priced online coaching service with video courses, a messenger group, group live calls and monthly one-to-one meetings – without approval under the FernUSG. The Federal Court of Justice follows on from its recent case law on distance learning and online coaching and clarifies the controversial basic question: When is there “physical separation” within the meaning of the FernUSG – especially in the case of online formats?
Contract content decides
In its ruling of 5 February 2026 (III ZR 137/25), the Federal Court of Justice firstly emphasizes that it is not the actual implementation, but the contractually owed service content that is decisive for the classification as distance learning.
Teachers and learners are physically separated if the knowledge transfer takes place over a physical distance and not by means of bidirectional communication.
The criterion of “physical separation” must be interpreted restrictively: Distance learning only exists if the knowledge transfer takes place asynchronously – i.e. with a time delay without the possibility of direct interaction – or if the learner cannot establish uncomplicated direct contact with the teacher. Synchronous online formats such as live video calls are therefore equivalent to face-to-face teaching and are not covered by the FernUSG. The decisive factor here is always the contractually owed service content, not the actual delivery of the lessons. At the same time, the court specifies the characteristic of monitoring learning success: A contractually granted right of the participant to ask questions is already sufficient.
The Federal Court of Justice referred the case back to the Court of Appeal for further clarification of the facts. The exact delimitation in the individual case thus remains the task of the trial court.
Conclusion
The ruling provides more clarity in the dispute over distance learning in the digital age. For providers of online coaching, it means that Those who predominantly teach synchronously and contractually guarantee genuine bidirectional communication do not have to fear a FernUSG approval. On the other hand, those who mainly rely on learning videos and asynchronous content risk the invalidity of the entire contract.
We are happy to
advise you about
Distance learning!
