BGH confirms applicability of the German Distance Learning Protection Act (FernUSG) also to online coaching and mentoring – no restriction to consumers

Background and reason for the decision

In its ruling of June 12, 2025 (III ZR 109/24), the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) made a groundbreaking decision for the coaching and training industry. The central question was whether an online mentoring program that was offered without official approval in accordance with the German Distance Learning Protection Act (FernUSG) is null and void and whether the participant can reclaim the remuneration paid. The plaintiff had participated in a high-priced, nine-month business mentoring program and demanded repayment of the course fee already paid after termination. The defendant was not licensed in accordance with Section 12 FernUSG.

Key statements of the judgment

1. Applicability of the FernUSG to online coaching and mentoring 

The BGH clarifies that the FernUSG also applies to online coaching and mentoring programs, provided that the requirements of Section 1 (1) FernUSG are met. The decisive factor is that it involves the paid teaching of knowledge and skills in which teachers and learners are predominantly physically separated and the learning success is monitored. The teaching of "any" knowledge and skills - regardless of their quality or content – is sufficient. Programs that are aimed at entrepreneurs and focus on personal development, mindset or entrepreneurial skills are also covered, provided that the focus is on imparting knowledge.

2. Physical separation and online formats 

The BGH also affirms physical separation for online formats. Even synchronous online meetings (e.g. live calls) that are recorded and can be accessed later are considered asynchronous teaching, as they can be consumed with a time delay. This means that most online coaching programs that rely on video lessons, online meetings and digital support are classified as distance learning within the meaning of the FernUSG.

3. Monitoring the learning success

The threshold for "monitoring learning success" is low: it is sufficient if the participant has the opportunity to ask questions about in online meetings, by email or in groups and thus bring about individual learning control. Setting and completing homework is also a good way of monitoring learning success.

4. No restriction to consumers 

The BGH rejects a restriction of the scope of application of the FernUSG to consumers (Section 13 BGB). Entrepreneurs who book a distance learning course are also covered by the scope of protection of the law. The wording of the law and the system speak in favor of an object-related protection concept that is not linked to the person of the participant, but to the type of contract.

5. Legal consequences

Nullity and claim for repayment: If the required approval pursuant to Section 12 FernUSG is missing, the contract is null and void pursuant to Section 7 (1) FernUSG. The participant can demand a full refund of the remuneration paid. The provider can only claim compensation for lost value if the provider specifically demonstrates that the participant has saved expenses as a result of the services provided – which was not the case in this instance.

Practical implications and recommendations

• Providers of online coaching, mentoring and comparable programs must check whether their offer is to be classified as distance learning within the meaning of the FernUSG. If this is the case, official approval is now mandatory – regardless of whether the offer is aimed at consumers or entrepreneurs.
• Contracts without approval are null and void. Participants can reclaim fees paid without having to pay compensation unless the provider can prove that the participant has made specific savings.
• The decision affects the majority of online coaching programs on the market, particularly those with standardized learning content, regular online meetings and learning success monitoring.
• Individual consulting services without predefined learning objectives and without monitoring learning success may fall outside the scope of the FernUSG under certain circumstances. However, the distinction remains difficult in individual cases.

Conclusion

With its decision, the BGH has considerably tightened the requirements for online coaching and mentoring services and has broadly defined the scope of application of the FernUSG. Providers are well advised to carefully examine their programs and contract design and, if necessary, apply for approval in order to avoid considerable repayment risks and the nullity of their contracts. The decision provides more legal certainty, but also places high demands on the industry.