BGH Coaching Ruling: What Applies Now? | IT-Medienrecht

A New BGH Ruling Causes a Shock Wave in the Coaching Industry

On June 12, 2025, the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) issued a landmark ruling. It classified certain high-priced online coaching and mentoring programs as distance learning under the German Distance Learning Protection Act (FernUSG).

Without official approval from the Central Office for Distance Learning (ZFU), such contracts are null and void. According to experts, this decision—the BGH coaching ruling 2025 (case no. III ZR 109/24)—affects up to 95-99% of all providers selling online coaching or mentoring. This means almost all existing online coaching and mentoring contracts could be retroactively null and void. Customers might even demand their money back years later.

Moreover, providers could face fines of up to €10,000 per program from authorities. Competition law warnings, with contractual penalties exceeding €50,000, are also possible. This sounds dramatic, and it is. Below, we analyze the ruling in detail, explaining what the BGH decided and which criteria must be met according to Section 1 (1) FernUSG. We also clarify why the program in question falls under it.

We provide clear lists and examples of which types of online coaching programs are now affected and which are not. (Spoiler: B2B coaching for the self-employed will no longer be exempt.)

Background: The BGH Ruling of June 12, 2025

The case involved a participant who signed a contract in April 2021 for a 9-month "Financial Fitness Business Mentoring Program" costing €47,600. The program included regular online meetings (bi-weekly, some recorded), instructional videos, homework, a workshop, and even one-on-one coaching sessions. However, the provider lacked ZFU approval for this offering.

The customer initially paid €23,800 and began the program. After seven weeks, he cancelled due to disappointment and demanded a refund. The OLG Stuttgart ruled in his favor, declaring the contract null and void due to a breach of the FernUSG. The providers' appeal failed. The BGH confirmed the contract's nullity on June 12, 2025, and rejected the appeal.

Consequently, the coaching contract was automatically invalid (void) due to the absence of the state license required under Section 12 (1) sentence 1 FernUSG. The participant had a claim to enrichment and was able to reclaim his €23,800. The provider was left empty-handed. Due to the lack of approval, he was not entitled to the remaining amount or compensation for the value of the seven weeks already completed. This was because he couldn't provide sufficient evidence of a reduction in the value of the enrichment.

It is noteworthy that the BGH clarified that the FernUSG also applies to contracts between entrepreneurs. Contrary to earlier opinions, this protection therefore extends beyond the B2C sector to B2B. Participants ("learners") can be self-employed individuals or entrepreneurs; the law makes no distinction here. The BGH has expressly confirmed this broad protective objective of the FernUSG. For more context on previous rulings, see The Impact of Earlier Rulings.

Let us now examine the elements of distance learning, as defined by Section 1 (1) FernUSG, which the BGH considered in this case. What exactly makes online coaching "distance learning"?

Distance Learning According to Section 1 (1) FernUSG: Criteria and Application

The Distance Learning Protection Act defines distance learning as "the teaching of knowledge and skills for a fee on a contractual basis, in which the teacher and the learner are exclusively or predominantly physically separated and the teacher monitors the learning success." Simply put, three characteristics must be present for a coaching program to be considered distance learning and fall under the FernUSG:

1. Paid provision of knowledge and skills (on a contract basis)
2. Spatial separation of teacher and learner (exclusively or predominantly)
3. Monitoring of learning success by the teacher (or their representative)

In its ruling, the BGH examined and affirmed all three criteria for the "Financial Fitness" mentoring program. Here's a detailed breakdown:

1. Imparting Knowledge and Skills

In the court's view, the first characteristic was clearly fulfilled. The program aimed to equip participants with knowledge in marketing, sales, and company organization. It concerned "knowledge," "know-how," and "financial education." The provider even referred to itself as an "academy." This constituted a transfer of knowledge and skills, not merely a form of personal coaching.

It is important to differentiate this from purely individual advice. The BGH emphasized that this was not coaching/mentoring primarily focused on personal advice and support. If it were such individual one-to-one coaching without predetermined learning content, it would be questionable whether "knowledge and skills" within the meaning of the FernUSG are imparted at all. The BGH deliberately left this difficult demarcation question open because standardized learning objectives and content were central in this specific case. Even if the program included some personal coaching elements (e.g., two individual online sessions to resolve personal blockages), these were supplementary, not the main focus. The decisive factor was the systematic transfer of knowledge in generally applicable areas, independent of the participants' individual situations.

Thus, the BGH adopted a broad interpretation of "imparting knowledge and skills." In its opinion, this encompasses "any" form of knowledge and skill transfer, irrespective of the topic, level, or designation as "coaching" or "mentoring." Therefore, it doesn't matter if it's traditional training or "soft" content like personality development or mindset. As long as the focus is on imparting knowledge/skills, the FernUSG applies. Even courses for entrepreneurs, such as "personal development" or entrepreneurial skills, are covered if the program aims at knowledge transfer. A minimum quality or formal qualification is not required. The vast majority of structured coaching courses impart some kind of knowledge, which is sufficient for criterion 1.

2. Spatial Separation (Predominantly or Exclusively)

Secondly, Section 1 (1) FernUSG requires teachers and learners to be predominantly physically separated. Traditionally, this means distance learning instead of face-to-face teaching. This requirement was also met in the online mentoring program, which took place entirely virtually via video, e-learning platform, email, etc. The teacher and participants were never in the same room.

In the digital age, however, the question arises whether live online lessons ("synchronous") also count as physical separation. The BGH highlighted an interesting aspect here. In the decided case, the online meetings were live but also recorded and made available to participants for later viewing. This allowed content to be viewed with a time delay, meaning real-time participation was not strictly necessary. The BGH thus categorized even synchronous live calls as asynchronous teaching components. Since the program primarily consisted of pre-produced or recording-based elements (videos, homework, on-demand calls), there was a predominant spatial separation. The BGH left open whether purely synchronous live online lessons without recordings count as "physically separate," as this was not the issue in this case. For more details on this distinction, consider our article on Distance Learning, Coaching, and Synchronous Online Formats.

According to the ZFU's previous opinion and some courts, if an online training course is exclusively live and interactive (presence-equivalent), there is no physical separation under the FernUSG. Such presence-equivalent live webinars would therefore not require approval. Only when time-delayed e-learning is involved (videos, documents for self-study, etc.) does the FernUSG apply. In the BGH case, the time-delayed component clearly predominated. Therefore, most online coaching programs with video lessons, recorded calls, and digital support meet this distance criterion. Pure on-site training or entirely synchronous online coaching, however, do not, as discussed below.

3. Monitoring Learning Success

The third characteristic is that the teacher must monitor (control) the participants' learning success. As in previous case law, the BGH did not impose strict requirements here. A low threshold for monitoring learning success is sufficient. Essentially, if learners are given at least the opportunity to ask questions about the material and receive individual feedback, the learning control requirement is fulfilled.

This was precisely the case in the mentoring program. Participants were allowed to ask questions in online meetings, by email, or in the Facebook group. This right to ask questions explicitly referred to comprehension questions about the learned material. The participant could therefore check whether they understood everything correctly and could apply it. This meant that a personal learning check by the coach was contractually agreed upon, which the BGH deemed sufficient to monitor learning success. A formal examination or grading is not required. The decisive factor is the element of feedback: there must be at least one possibility for individual success monitoring (e.g., oral or written questions, homework feedback, tests). The BGH also referred to its earlier ruling from 2009, which stated precisely this.

In the past, some courts have ruled differently on what constitutes sufficient monitoring of learning success. For instance, the Higher Regional Court of Cologne in 2023 denied distance learning because no real monitoring had been agreed upon. It did not consider a mere "question flat rate" without checking acquired knowledge to be monitoring in the literal sense. Similarly, the Higher Regional Court of Hamburg ruled in 2024 that merely "being available" for queries did not constitute monitoring, as there was no active monitoring element.

However, the BGH holds that even the possibility of personal queries and feedback is sufficient. This indicates rather generous, low-threshold requirements for learning control. In case of doubt, it depends on what is contractually guaranteed. If, for example, customers are promised individual feedback or a performance review (exam, certificate, etc.), distance learning is clearly applicable. If there is no possibility of supervision or monitoring, it is more likely to be purely self-study material, and thus not distance learning.

In summary, the BGH affirmed all three criteria in the present case. It was a paid, contractually regulated program for imparting knowledge, predominantly carried out independently of location, with personal learning support (opportunity to ask questions). The offer was therefore distance learning within the meaning of the FernUSG. Since ZFU approval was missing, the contract was void according to Section 7 para. 1 FernUSG. The next question for many is: Which coaching programs are now subject to the ZFU obligation after this ruling?

Which Coaching Programs Are Now Affected?

The BGH ruling is a milestone that has broadly defined the scope of application of the FernUSG. In practice, most common online coaching offerings are likely to meet the criteria and therefore require ZFU approval. Otherwise, their coaching contracts will be null and void. At the same time, some constellations do not fall under the FernUSG. Here's an overview of which types of coaching programs are now affected and which are not:

Affected Programs (Subject to ZFU Approval)

The following types of programs are particularly affected and require ZFU approval:

• Standardized online courses, coaching, or mentoring programs that systematically impart knowledge (e.g., business coaching, marketing courses, finance, or mindset programs with defined learning modules). The key factor is that predefined content/learning objectives apply to all participants, not just individual advice.
• Online programs lasting several months with mixed formats, such as video lessons, webinars/live calls, and written material, combined with support services (Q&A sessions, feedback, homework, etc.). Such hybrid e-learning formats generally fulfill all the characteristics of distance learning.
• Offers with regular online meetings or Q&A sessions that are often recorded or supplemented with asynchronous content. Especially high-priced coaching programs on the market typically rely on a mixture of live support and on-demand learning content. These are now clearly covered by the FernUSG.
• Programs with some form of learning success control: e.g., homework with feedback, quizzes/tests, a final certificate, or simply the contractual assurance that questions may be asked and answered. Even a single such control option turns the contract into distance learning. Most coaching offers advertise personal support, which usually fulfills the learning control requirement.
• Online training courses regardless of the participant group: Whether the offer targets consumers or entrepreneurs, B2C and B2B coaching courses are equally subject to the ZFU obligation, provided the distance learning criteria are met. The BGH has clarified that self-employed individuals and prospective entrepreneurs also enjoy the protection of the FernUSG, not just consumers.

Example: A 6-month online business coaching course with video lessons, weekly live Zoom calls (recorded), a supervised Facebook group, and clearly defined course content (e.g., marketing strategy, mindset training) now requires ZFU approval. Without approval, the coaching contract would be null and void. The customer could reclaim fees already paid, and the coach would not be able to demand outstanding installments.

Following the BGH ruling, it's clear that the majority of current online coaching programs on the market are affected. Industry insiders suggest that almost all online coaching and mentoring contracts would now be subject to approval. Especially typical "high-price coaching programs" (over €5,000), which operate a scalable online model with video courses and group support, will either need fundamental restructuring or must obtain approval.

Programs Not (or Less Likely to Be) Affected

Generally, the following are not subject to FernUSG requirements:

• Pure face-to-face training or live seminars on site. Classic workshops where the coach and client meet physically do not fall under distance learning (no physical separation).
• "Presence-equivalent" online events: This refers to live webinars or live coaching sessions without recording, where the coach is connected online but interacts directly with participants in real time—a virtual presence, so to speak. If all content is taught synchronously and without time-shifted material, the ZFU has not yet considered this to be distance learning. (It remains to be seen whether the legislator will confirm this distinction in the future. The BGH has not contradicted this, provided nothing is recorded.)
• Individual 1:1 coaching and advice, without a predefined curriculum: If a coach exclusively addresses the client's situation in a personalized manner and there is no standardized course program, it can be argued that there is no knowledge transfer "in the sense of the FernUSG." The focus here is on personal advice, not the subject matter. Example: A business mentor who individually addresses a single founder-coachee's current questions weekly, without a fixed agenda or learning objectives, is unlikely to fall under the FernUSG. (Caution: However, if learning modules or fixed topics are worked through, for example, the situation is different.)
• Self-study courses without supervision: If someone only offers video tutorials or e-books for purchase, without any supervision, feedback, or examinations, the characteristic of learning success control is missing. Such purely self-learning offers are not considered distance learning. Please note: There must be zero interaction here; even an "ask-me-anything" group or consultation hour would count as a success check.
• Hobby courses for leisure activities: The FernUSG recognizes the category of hobby courses. Courses exclusively for entertainment or private leisure (e.g., an online painting course for hobby painters with no professional connection) are generally subject to the FernUSG but are exempt from the approval requirement. This means that even if an online fishing course imparts knowledge and would be distance learning, it does not have to be approved by the ZFU as long as it is clearly for hobby purposes. (Professional further education, on the other hand, is always subject to approval.)

Note: No approval according to FernUSG is required for free offers, for face-to-face or fully live formats, for pure self-study courses without individual control, and for pure hobby courses. In all other cases, if in doubt, you should assume that authorization is required. The case law of recent years has been inconsistent in some details, making caution even more necessary.

Discussion and Consequences for the Coaching Industry

The BGH's decision has sparked considerable discussion in the online coaching scene. Many providers who previously believed their course model did not fall under regulated distance learning have now been proven wrong. Lawyer Notash Taheri commented on LinkedIn that the Federal Court of Justice had effectively overturned all coach-friendly rulings by the Higher Regional Courts, affecting "95 to 99% of all providers" in the online coaching market. Almost every online coaching service now requires ZFU approval or fundamental restructuring, Taheri stated. He described it as a "shock" for the industry, but also a long-overdue clarification. Until now, some coaches exploited legal gray areas to offer high-priced courses without state control. These changes present significant legal challenges for startups in the sector.

Why all this effort? The Distance Learning Protection Act dates back to the 1970s and primarily aims to protect participants. It prevents those seeking education from being exploited by dubious distance learning offers. The ZFU approval requirement ensures that the content and contractual conditions of a distance learning course have been checked and meet certain quality standards. Until recently, providers without accreditation were not actually allowed to officially advertise or offer their distance learning courses. However, this often occurred, particularly in the unregulated coaching market. The BGH has now concluded that contracts without approval are null and void. Participants can demand their money back, whether they are consumers or entrepreneurs. The ruling thus significantly strengthens the position of customers and clearly distinguishes itself from non-transparent business models in the coaching market.

For coach trainers and online trainers, this ruling means carefully examining their offerings. Many programs are now subject to approval, which involves effort and costs. A ZFU examination can take several months and incur fees of at least ~€1,050 (up to 150% of the course price). However, these are investments in quality and legal certainty. Some providers may alter their concept, perhaps reducing supervision and "learning control" to fall outside the FernUSG. But caution is advised: courts will closely scrutinize whether knowledge is genuinely being imparted and controlled. Distinguishing between these can be difficult in individual cases. If in doubt, it is better to apply for approval than face nullity claims later. To avoid common legal mistakes, proactive compliance is key.

Furthermore, withdrawal and termination rights, analogous to consumer law, could now also apply to entrepreneurs if B2B coaching is classified as distance learning. The BGH has indicated that all consumer-friendly protective provisions of the FernUSG will then also apply to entrepreneurs. This further raises the requirements for fair contracts and emphasizes the value of professionalism in contract design.

Conclusion: The BGH Ruling is a Wake-up Call for the Industry

With its coaching ruling in 2025, the Federal Court of Justice unequivocally clarified that online coaching does not operate in a legal vacuum. Distance learning is distance learning, regardless of whether it's called "mentoring" or "mastermind." Providers should take this decision seriously and critically review their programs and contracts now. Continuing to offer standardized online coaching without ZFU approval would be highly risky.

If you are a coach or course provider, have your contracts and course concepts legally checked immediately. Do you need to register your coaching program with the ZFU? Does your contract comply with the formal requirements of the FernUSG? If necessary, adapt your contracts (e.g., clear information, revocation instructions, mandatory information according to FernUSG) and initiate the approval procedure. Investing now will save you from cancellation claims and legal trouble in the future. One thing is clear: a coaching contract without the required ZFU approval is—as of now—invalid. Anyone wanting to offer high-quality online training can no longer avoid this issue.

Further Reading: The full BGH ruling from 12.06.2025 (Ref. III ZR 109/24) can be read here. In it, the BGH specifies in detail over approximately 20 pages the application of the FernUSG to modern digital learning offers. It is compulsory reading for all those working in this field.