Under German law, a pressing question is arising for many business owners who have signed up for expensive online coaching programs and paid thousands of euros: was the contract ever legally valid? The Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof, BGH) has made its position clear: many coaching contracts are void. In its judgment of 12 June 2025 (III ZR 109/24), the BGH held that a contract concluded without the legally required approval under the Distance Learning Protection Act (Fernunterrichtsschutzgesetz, FernUSG) is null and void from the outset. Crucially, this applies not only to consumers but expressly also to business owners. Anyone who has already paid may be entitled to recover that money.

Are you a business owner who has signed up for online coaching in Germany — perhaps for your own professional development, for your staff, or as part of a broader business strategy? Then you need to know where the law currently stands.

At Schlun & Elseven Rechtsanwälte, we advise business owners operating in Germany who have entered into high-value coaching contracts and want to understand their legal options. Drawing on combined expertise in civil law and a clear focus on our clients’ interests, we accompany you from the initial assessment through to the enforcement of your claims — directly, efficiently, and with the goal of recovering what you have paid.

When Is a Coaching Contract Void Under German Law?

The key issue is this: as soon as a coaching offer qualifies as distance learning, the Distance Learning Protection Act (FernUSG) applies. The Act requires providers to obtain state approval from the State Central Office for Distance Learning (Staatliche Zentralstelle für Fernunterricht, ZFU). Any provider that offers coaching without this approval is entering into a void contract — with all the consequences that follow.

Distance learning is established more readily than many providers would like to acknowledge. What matters is not how a coaching program is marketed, but how it is structurally organized. If learning content is delivered outside of joint real-time sessions — for example, through pre-recorded videos, written materials, or set assignments — there is a strong case that the offering constitutes distance learning in the legal sense.

An important point for business owners in Germany: the FernUSG is not purely a consumer protection measure. B2B contracts can also fall within its scope. The BGH has expressly confirmed that the protective scope of Section 7 FernUSG is not limited to consumers, but also covers business owners where the structural characteristics of distance learning are present (BGH, judgment of 12 June 2025 — III ZR 109/24).

A business owner who has purchased such a coaching program is therefore in no worse a position than a private individual — if anything, the reverse is true: the nullity of the contract and the resulting right to reclaim payments apply in principle here as well.

How to Recognize a Legally Vulnerable Coaching Contract

The coaching programs most commonly affected tend to follow a recognizable pattern: prices ranging from €3,000 to €20,000, high-pressure sales tactics at the point of signing — often with time-limited offers or one-on-one sales calls — and contracts that leave little room for negotiation. Whether paid in a lump sum or in installments, once signed, the money often seems gone for good. Or does it?

Typical features that may make a coaching contract legally vulnerable under German law include:

  • Online course modules or video lessons that are pre-recorded and available on demand,
  • Supplementary live group calls that do not form the core of the content delivery,
  • Mandatory assignments, structured learning modules, or final assessments pointing to a systematic approach to knowledge transfer with progress monitoring,
  • References to a “curriculum,” certification, or similar classroom-style elements,
  • Specific promises of results in the contract or on the website — such as guaranteed revenue increases or financial targets within a set time frame,
  • Clauses purporting to exclude or limit the right of withdrawal — for example, by claiming that performance began immediately upon signing,
  • Unclear or unexpected terms and conditions, particularly regarding notice periods or automatic contract renewal.

If any of this sounds familiar, a legal review of your contract is worthwhile. What appears at first glance to be a closed matter may turn out to be void — and that means you are not obliged to accept the loss of what you have paid. Schlun & Elseven will review your contract and give you a clear assessment of whether, and to what extent, you have grounds to reclaim your payments.

What Happens When a Coaching Contract Is Declared Void?

A void contract is invalid from the outset and produces no legal effect. In practical terms, this means that payments already made can be recovered. Anyone who has not yet paid in full has no obligation to settle the outstanding amounts.

The BGH has expressly confirmed that amounts already paid can be reclaimed in full — even where services such as videos or coaching sessions have already been used (BGH, judgment of 12 June 2025 — III ZR 109/24). In suitable cases, recovery can be pursued without drawn-out disputes over the quality or outcomes of the coaching. The nullity follows solely from the formal defect of the missing ZFU approval. The question is therefore not whether the coaching was good or bad, whether the promised results materialized, or whether the coach performed to a professional standard. All of that is legally irrelevant. The only issue is whether the provider held the legally required approval — and that can generally be established quickly and conclusively.

For further background on how German law treats online coaching contracts and the rights available to clients, see our overview of online coaching contracts in Germany.

Coaching Contract Refunds in Germany: Addressing Common Misconceptions

“I am a business owner. The FernUSG only applies to consumers.”

  • This is a widespread misconception. Under the current case law of the Federal Court of Justice, what matters is not whether a party qualifies as a consumer, but the substantive nature of the contract (BGH, judgment of 12 June 2025 — III ZR 109/24). The determining factor is the subject matter of the agreement, not the status of the contracting party.

“I have already paid in full.”

  • This is not an obstacle. Precisely because the contract is void, a right to reverse the transaction arises. Amounts already paid can be reclaimed — regardless of whether the coaching has already begun or concluded.

“The contract has been running for months, or has already ended.”

  • The nullity applies from the outset — even in respect of concluded contractual relationships, recovery claims may remain available as long as they have not become time-barred.

Get Your Coaching Contract Reviewed by a German Lawyer

Whether your coaching contract falls within the scope of the BGH ruling, and whether a recovery claim is realistically enforceable, cannot be answered in the abstract — it depends on the specific terms of the individual contract.

At Schlun & Elseven Rechtsanwälte, our team reviews coaching contracts and assists business owners in Germany in pursuing their recovery claims. Our contract law team provides an initial legal assessment — concrete, efficient, and without unnecessary detours. Please feel free to get in touch or use our contact form to arrange an initial assessment.