BGH shakes up the coaching industry – What applies now?

A new BGH ruling is causing a shock wave in the coaching industry: On 12 June 2025, the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) ruled that certain high-priced online coaching and mentoring programs are to be classified as distance learning within the meaning of 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 who sell online coaching or mentoring. In other words, almost all existing online coaching and mentoring contracts could be null and void with retroactive effect, and customers could demand their money back years later. On top of this, providers could face fines of up to €10,000 per program from the authorities as well as warnings under competition law with contractual penalties of over €50,000. Sounds dramatic? In the following, we analyze the ruling in detail – what exactly the BGH decided, which criteria must be met in accordance with Section 1 (1) FernUSG and why the program in question falls under it. We also show clearly which types of coaching programs are now affected and which are not – with clear lists and examples. (Spoiler: B2B coaching for the self-employed will not be exempt in future).

Background: The BGH ruling of June 12, 2025

In the underlying case, a participant had signed a contract for a 9-month “Financial Fitness Business Mentoring Program” in April 2021 at a cost of €47,600. The program included regular online meetings (every two weeks, some recorded), instructional videos, homework, a workshop and even some one-on-one coaching sessions. However, the provider did not have ZFU approval for this offer. The customer initially paid €23,800 and started the program, but cancelled after seven weeks in disappointment and demanded a refund of the amount already paid. The OLG Stuttgart ruled in his favor and declared the contract null and void due to a breach of the FernUSG. The providers’ appeal failed – the BGH confirmed the nullity of the contract on 12.06.2025 and rejected the appeal.

As a result, the coaching contract was automatically invalid (void) due to the lack 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 neither entitled to the remaining amount nor compensation for the value of the seven weeks already completed, as he was unable to provide sufficient evidence of a reduction in the value of the enrichment.

It is worth noting that the BGH clarified that the FernUSG also applies to contracts between entrepreneurs. Contrary to some earlier opinions, the protection therefore applies not only in the B2C sector, but also in B2B. Participants (“learners”) can just as easily be self-employed persons or entrepreneurs – the law makes no distinction here. The BGH has expressly confirmed this broadly understood protection objective of the FernUSG.

Let us now take a look at the elements of distance learning in accordance with Section 1 (1) FernUSG, which the BGH examined in the case decided: What exactly makes online coaching “distance learning”?

Distance learning according to § 1 para. 1 FernUSG – criteria and application to coaching

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”. Put simply, 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 all three criteria and affirmed them for the “Financial Fitness” mentoring program. In detail:

1. imparting knowledge and skills

In the court’s view, the first characteristic was clearly fulfilled. The program at issue was intended to provide participants with knowledge in marketing, sales and company organization; it was about “knowledge”, “know-how” and “financial education” – the provider even called itself an “academy”. This constituted a transfer of knowledge and skills and not just some form of personal coaching.

It is important to differentiate this from purely individual advice: the BGH emphasized that this was not coaching/mentoring, where the main focus is on personal advice and support for the customer. 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 question of demarcation open because standardized learning objectives and content were in the foreground in the specific case. Even if the program contained some personal coaching elements (e.g. two individual online sessions to resolve personal blockages), these were not the main focus, but merely a supplement. The decisive factor was the systematic transfer of knowledge in generally applicable areas (regardless of the individual situation of the participants).

The BGH thus follows a broad interpretation of the term imparting knowledge and skills. In its opinion, this includes “any” form of imparting knowledge and skills, regardless of the topic, level or designation as “coaching” or “mentoring”. It therefore does not matter whether it is traditional training or “soft” content such as personality development or mindset – as long as the focus is on imparting knowledge/skills, the FernUSG applies. Even courses aimed at entrepreneurs, e.g. “personal development” or entrepreneurial skills, are covered if the program is geared towards imparting knowledge. A minimum quality or formal qualification is not required. Conclusion: 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 that teachers and learners are predominantly physically separated. In the traditional sense, this means distance learning instead of face-to-face teaching. This requirement was also met in the online mentoring program – after all, the program took place entirely virtually (via video, e-learning platform, email, etc.), and the teacher and participants were never in the same room.

However, in the digital age, the question arises as to whether live online lessons (“synchronous”) also count as physical separation. The BGH highlighted an interesting aspect here: In the case decided, the online meetings were live, but were recorded and made available to the participants for viewing afterwards. This meant that the content could be viewed with a time delay and real-time participation was not absolutely necessary. The BGH therefore classified even the synchronous live calls as asynchronous teaching components. Because the program mainly 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” – this was not the issue in this case.

According to the previous opinion of the ZFU and some courts, if an online training course takes place exclusively live and interactively (as in presence), there is no physical separation within the meaning of the FernUSG. Such presence-equivalent live webinars would therefore not be subject to approval. Only when time-delayed e-learning comes into play (videos, documents for self-study, etc.) does the FernUSG apply. In the BGH case, the time-delayed part clearly predominated. It can therefore be stated: Most online coaching programs with video lessons, recorded calls and digital support meet this distance criterion. Pure on-site training or completely synchronous online coaching, on the other hand, do not – more on this below.

3. monitoring the learning success

Third characteristic: The teacher must monitor (control) the learning success of the participants. As in previous case law, the BGH has not set any strict requirements here. A low threshold for monitoring learning success is already sufficient. Essentially, this means that if learners are at least given the opportunity to ask questions about the material and receive individual feedback, the learning control is fulfilled.

This was exactly the case in the mentoring program in question. According to the description, participants were allowed to ask questions in the online meetings, by email or in the Facebook group. This right to ask questions also explicitly referred to comprehension questions about the material learned – the participant was therefore able to check whether they had understood everything correctly and could apply it. This meant that a personal learning check by the coach was contractually agreed, which in the opinion of the BGH was 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 refers here to its earlier ruling from 2009, which stated precisely this.

Note: In the past, some courts have ruled somewhat differently on what constitutes sufficient monitoring of learning success. For example, the Higher Regional Court of Cologne 2023 denied distance learning because no real monitoring had been agreed – it did not consider a mere “question flat rate” without checking acquired knowledge to be monitoring in the literal sense. The Higher Regional Court of Hamburg ruled similarly in 2024: merely “being available” for queries did not constitute monitoring, as there was no active monitoring element. However, the BGH takes the view that even the possibility of personal queries and feedback is sufficient – i.e. 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 the obvious choice. If there is no possibility of supervision or monitoring, it is more likely to be purely self-study material – then it is 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 the ZFU approval was missing, the contract was void according to § 7 para. 1 FernUSG. The next question for many is: Which coaching programs are affected by the ZFU obligation after this ruling – and which are not?

Which coaching programs are now affected?

The BGH ruling is considered a milestone and has defined the scope of application of the FernUSG very broadly. In practice, most common online coaching offers are likely to meet the criteria – and therefore require ZFU approval from now on, otherwise their coaching contracts are null and void. At the same time, there are some constellations that do not fall under the FernUSG. Here is an overview of which types of coaching programs are now affected and which are not:

Affected (subject to ZFU) are in particular:

• 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 decisive factor is that predefined content/learning objectives apply to all participants and not just individual advice.
• Online programs lasting several months with mixed formats, e.g. 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, which are often also recorded or supplemented with asynchronous content. High-priced coaching programs on the market in particular usually rely on a mixture of live support and on-demand learning content – these are now also clearly covered by the FernUSG.
• Programs with some form of learning success control: e.g. homework with feedback, quizzes/tests, 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 with personal support – this is usually already fulfilled by the learning control).
• Online training courses regardless of the group of participants: Regardless of whether the offer is aimed at consumers or entrepreneurs – B2C and B2B coaching courses are equally subject to the ZFU obligation, provided that the distance learning criteria are met. The BGH has clarified that self-employed persons 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 allowed to demand outstanding installments.

Following the BGH ruling, it can be said that the majority of current online coaching programs on the market are affected. Industry insiders say that almost all online coaching and mentoring contracts would now be subject to approval. Especially the typical “high-price coaching programs” (>€5,000), which operate a scalable online model with video course + group support, will have to fundamentally change or obtain approval.

Not (or rather not) affected are mostly:

• Pure face-to-face training or live seminars on site. Classic workshops where coach and client meet physically do not fall under distance learning (no physical separation).
• “Presence-equivalent” online events: This means live webinars or live coaching sessions without recording, where the coach is connected online but interacts directly with the participants in real time – 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 at least not contradicted this as long as nothing is recorded).
• Individual 1:1 coaching and advice, without a predefined curriculum: If a coach deals exclusively with the client’s situation in a personalized manner and there is no standardized course program behind it, it can be argued that there is no knowledge transfer “in the sense of the FernUSG”. The focus here is on personal advice, not on the subject matter. Example: A business mentor who devotes himself individually to the current questions of a single founder-coachee on a weekly basis, without a fixed agenda or learning objectives, is unlikely to fall under the FernUSG. (Caution: However, as soon as learning modules or fixed topics are worked through, for example, the situation is different).
• Self-study courses without supervision: If, for example, 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 actually be zero interaction here – even an “ask-me-anything” group or consultation hour would count as a success check again.
• Hobby courses for leisure activities: The FernUSG recognizes the category of hobby courses. Courses that are 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 only 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 the last few years has been inconsistent in some details – all the more reason for caution.

Discussion and consequences for the coaching industry

The BGH’s decision has triggered considerable discussion in the online coaching scene. Many providers who previously thought that their course model did not fall under regulated distance learning courses have now been proven wrong. Lawyer Notash Taheri commented on LinkedIn that the Federal Court of Justice had virtually overturned all coach-friendly rulings by the Higher Regional Courts in the highest instance – affecting “95 to 99% of all providers” in the online coaching market. Almost every online coaching service now needs ZFU approval or must be fundamentally restructured, Taheri continues. He speaks of a “shock” for the industry, but also of a long overdue clarification. Until now, some coaches have used legal gray areas to offer high-priced courses without state control.

Why all this effort? – The Distance Learning Protection Act dates back to the 1970s and primarily serves to protect participants. It is intended to prevent those wishing to learn from being taken advantage of 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 now, providers without accreditation were not actually allowed to officially advertise or offer their distance learning courses. In fact, however, this often happened, especially in the unregulated coaching market. The BGH has now drawn the conclusion: contracts without approval are null and void – participants can demand their money back, regardless of whether they are consumers or entrepreneurs. The ruling thus significantly strengthens the position of customers and clearly sets itself apart from non-transparent business models in the coaching market.

For coach trainers and online trainers, this ruling means that they will have to examine their offerings carefully. Many programs are now subject to approval, which is associated with effort and costs – a ZFU examination can take several months and trigger 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 change their concept, e.g. reduce supervision and “learning control” in order to just fall out of the FernUSG. But be careful: the courts will take a close look to see whether knowledge is actually being imparted and controlled. It can be difficult to distinguish between the two in individual cases. If in doubt, it is better to apply for approval than to be confronted with claims of nullity later on.

In addition, withdrawal and termination rights analogous to consumer law could now also apply to entrepreneurs if B2B coaching is to be 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 increases the requirements for fair contracts.

Conclusion: The BGH ruling is a wake-up call for the industry

With its coaching ruling in 2025, the Federal Court of Justice made it unmistakably clear that online coaching does not take place in a legal vacuum. Distance learning is distance learning – regardless of whether you call it “mentoring” or “mastermind”. Providers should take the decision seriously and critically review their programs and contracts now. Allowing standardized online coaching to continue without ZFU approval would be highly risky.

Optional tip: If you are a coach or course provider yourself, have your contracts and course concepts legally checked immediately. Do you have to register your coaching program with the ZFU? Does your contract comply with the formal requirements of the FernUSG? If necessary, you should adapt 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. Because one thing is clear: A coaching contract without the required ZFU approval is – as of now – invalid. Anyone who wants to offer high-quality online training can no longer avoid this issue.

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

Author: Marian Härtel

Marian Härtel ist Rechtsanwalt und Fachanwalt für IT-Recht mit einer über 25-jährigen Erfahrung als Unternehmer und Berater in den Bereichen Games, E-Sport, Blockchain, SaaS und Künstliche Intelligenz. Seine Beratungsschwerpunkte umfassen neben dem IT-Recht insbesondere das Urheberrecht, Medienrecht sowie Wettbewerbsrecht. Er betreut schwerpunktmäßig Start-ups, Agenturen und Influencer, die er in strategischen Fragen, komplexen Vertragsangelegenheiten sowie bei Investitionsprojekten begleitet. Dabei zeichnet sich seine Beratung durch einen interdisziplinären Ansatz aus, der juristische Expertise und langjährige unternehmerische Erfahrung miteinander verbindet. Ziel seiner Tätigkeit ist stets, Mandanten praxisorientierte Lösungen anzubieten und rechtlich fundierte Unterstützung bei der Umsetzung innovativer Geschäftsmodelle zu gewährleisten.