- The ruling of the Higher Regional Court of Hamburg of February 20, 2024 clarifies key issues in online coaching.
- A differentiated interpretation of the learning success control is central to the assessment of online coaching offers.
- The court makes it clear that a few queries do not constitute a sufficient assessment of learning success.
- The clarification of the term strengthens legal certainty and clarifies uncertainties from previous rulings.
- The ruling serves as a guideline for providers to draft contracts in accordance with the FernUSG.
- It marks a turning point that supports the growth and vitality of the online coaching industry.
- A review of existing contracts is recommended in order to create legal clarity.
In its ruling of February 20, 2024 (case reference: 10 U 44/23), the Higher Regional Court of Hamburg issued a clarifying opinion in the area of online coaching and the Distance Learning Protection Act (FernUSG). This ruling, which now goes against the earlier decision of the Higher Regional Court of Celle, helps to put the online coaching industry back on a sound footing. It is not to be understood as groundbreaking, but rather as a confirmation of many corrective judgments following the judgment of the Higher Regional Court of Celle, which was perceived as problematic.
Correcting case law and strengthening the industry
A central point of the Hamburg ruling is the differentiated interpretation of the question regarding the assessment of learning success. The court clarifies that “a few questions” in the context of online coaching are not sufficient to be considered a learning success check within the meaning of the FernUSG. The Higher Regional Court of Hamburg emphasizes that monitoring the learning success must include a significantly more intensive control component than was the case in the present case.
The court stated: “The plaintiff was not obliged to monitor any learning success. To extend the scope of application of the law to cases in which no control of the learning success was agreed, but only the possibility for the contractual partner to ask questions, would therefore contradict the clear wording.” This interpretation is decisive for the distinction between contracts that fall under the FernUSG and those that are excluded from it.
With this ruling, the Higher Regional Court of Hamburg provides a more precise and narrower interpretation of the term “learning success control” and thus contributes significantly to legal certainty. It addresses the uncertainties created by the ruling of the OLG Celle and clarifies that a blanket application of the FernUSG to all forms of online coaching is not appropriate. This ruling is an important step towards clarifying the legal framework and strengthening the online coaching industry.
By emphasizing the necessity of a differentiated and appropriate consideration of individual contractual components in the context of the FernUSG, the OLG Hamburg makes a significant contribution to stabilizing the legal framework. This promotes healthy growth in this innovative and dynamic sector and contributes to a practice-oriented application of the law that takes into account the specific characteristics and needs of the online coaching industry.
Conclusion
The judgment of the Higher Regional Court of Hamburg serves to clarify and correct a legally complex area. It confirms that a differentiated consideration of the contractual agreements in online coaching is necessary in order to correctly assess the applicability of the FernUSG. For providers of online courses, this means a simplification and a clear guideline for the design of their contracts. The ruling thus contributes to stabilization and legal clarity in the online coaching industry.
This verdict marks a turning point that shows that online coaching is “alive” again. The vitality and potential of this industry is also reflected in many other blog posts here on the blog. This development underlines the relevance of and growing interest in online coaching services, which represent a flexible and effective form of learning and personal development.
At the same time, as a lawyer and expert in this field, I recommend using this opportunity to review existing contracts and update them if necessary. It is advisable to use good, new contracts or contracts that have been checked by a lawyer in order to offer both providers and participants of online coaching courses security and clarity. Such a review and adjustment of contracts is not only a reaction to the current ruling, but also a proactive measure to adapt to the constantly evolving legal and market-specific circumstances.
Overall, the ruling of the Higher Regional Court of Hamburg shows that the online coaching industry is a dynamic and evolving landscape that requires both legal attention and innovative approaches. It is a positive signal for all those involved that a clear legal framework supports healthy growth and sustainable development in the industry.
