Online Coaching Contracts in Germany: Refund Rights and Legal Protection

The online coaching market is booming, with promises of personal transformation, professional success, and financial freedom. However, coaching contracts often contain legal pitfalls: unclear contract clauses, missing withdrawal instructions, and courses that actually fall under Germany’s Distance Learning Protection Act (FernUSG) yet are offered without the required authorisation from the Central Office for Distance Learning (ZFU).

A landmark ruling by Germany’s Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof, “BGH”) on June 12, 2025 (Case No. III ZR 109/24) has significantly strengthened the rights of coaching clients: When providers fail to comply with statutory authorisation requirements, the contract is void – meaning you can reclaim your money in full, even after several months.

Coaching Contracts in Germany: What Does a Coach Owe?

From a legal perspective, a coaching contract is typically a service contract (§ 611 German Civil Code/BGB). This means the coach owes only their effort, not measurable results. This can differ when the coach makes concrete promises of success (e.g., “After my program, you will achieve five-figure monthly revenues”). In such cases, it may constitute a work contract (§ 631 BGB) with entirely different legal obligations.

Tip: Pay attention to explicit formulations in the contract or on the website. The more concrete the promises of success, the more likely the coach may be liable for failing to achieve these promises – and the more legally vulnerable the contract may be.

Whether “Coaching” or “Distance Learning”: What Applies to Online Offerings

Germany’s Distance Learning Protection Act (FernUSG) protects clients from dubious online courses when three criteria are met:

• Knowledge is imparted in exchange for payment
• Content is provided primarily online or without personal contact
• There is some form of performance monitoring (e.g., feedback via email, Zoom Q&A sessions, mandatory assignments, etc.)

When a coaching program meets all three criteria, it legally constitutes distance learning—and may only be offered with authorisation from the Central Office for Distance Learning (ZFU).

Key Provisions of the June 2025 BGH Ruling

The Federal Court of Justice ruled in its decision of June 12, 2025 (Case No. III ZR 109/24):

• Coaching contracts between business entities can also fall under the FernUSG. The decisive factor is not your status, but the structure of the offering. The scope of protection under § 7 FernUSG is not limited to consumers only.
• If coaching is designed for systematic knowledge transfer with learning progress monitoring, it constitutes distance learning—even if marketed as “mentoring,” “coaching,” or simply a “course.”
• Without ZFU authorisation, the contract is void.
• You can reclaim already paid amounts in full—without deductions, even if you have already received services such as videos or calls.
• Additionally, a right of withdrawal often exists, which can be exercised even months later, for example, when:
  • You were not informed/incompletely informed/incorrectly informed about your right of withdrawal
  • ZFU authorisation is missing
  • You are legally classified as a consumer

How to Identify Problematic Coaching Contracts in Germany

Many coaching contracts are legally vulnerable. Pay particular attention to:

• Concrete success statements (“You will earn X euros in Y weeks”)
• Mandatory assignments, learning modules, or tests
• References to a “curriculum” or certificates
• Waiver of withdrawal rights (e.g., through immediate commencement of services)
• Unfair or surprising terms and conditions, particularly regarding cancellation periods or automatic renewals

What Can You Do If You Have Already Paid?

If you suspect your coaching contract falls under the FernUSG or is otherwise unlawful:

• Review contract and communications: Are there performance promises? References to “instruction”?
• Inquire about ZFU authorisation: Does the provider have valid authorisation?
• Declare withdrawal (if the deadline has not properly begun)
• Assert a refund claim under § 812 BGB
• Seek legal counsel: A specialised attorney can support you in successfully reclaiming your money

Conclusion: How to Assert Your Rights as a Coaching Client

Many digital coaching offerings operate on legally thin ice. When ZFU authorisation is lacking or the contract contains impermissible clauses, you have good prospects for a complete refund—even months later.

Do not be deceived by empty success promises or non-transparent terms and conditions. As a coaching client, you have rights—use them.

Have you participated in coaching with which you are dissatisfied and now wish to examine whether you may have a claim for cost reimbursement? Our law firm offers an initial assessment within the framework of a consultation.

Note: This article does not constitute legal advice but serves for general information purposes. For an individual assessment, please contact our contract law attorneys.

What Impact Does the BGH Ruling Have on Continuing Legal Education for Attorneys?

The landmark BGH ruling of June 12, 2025 (Case No. III ZR 109/24) on the Distance Learning Protection Act raises questions for coaching providers and participants. It creates uncertainty for providers of continuing legal education. This is because attorneys must complete continuing education according to the German Federal Lawyers’ Act (BRAO), which typically occurs through synchronous online events.

An online event is synchronous or “live” when it occurs only in real-time—meaning it is not recorded and therefore cannot be accessed later. The question arose whether legal continuing education also requires ZFU authorisation. The decisive factor here is the definition under § 1 FernUSG: it requires spatial separation between teachers and learners and monitoring of learning success. Instruction occurs with “spatial separation” when it occurs largely asynchronously (i.e., not in real-time).

For legal online continuing education, this means they still do not require ZFU authorisation (as long as they are not recorded), as they do not fall under the scope of § 1 FernUSG and can therefore continue to be offered online in real-time.

International Considerations

For International Clients: While this ruling specifically addresses German law, similar consumer protection principles exist in many jurisdictions. If you are based outside Germany but entered into a contract with a German coaching provider, or if the contract is governed by German law, these protections may still apply to you.

Cross-Border Enforcement: Our firm has experience in cross-border contract disputes and can advise on the enforceability of German court decisions in your jurisdiction. We can also coordinate with international legal counsel where necessary.

Language and Communication: We provide comprehensive English-language support and handle all German legal documentation and translation requirements.