BGH scare for online courses: Do lawyers' training courses now have to go to the ZFU?

What is it all about?

A recent BGH ruling (12.06.2025, Ref. III ZR 109/24) is causing some nervousness: Does every online training course suddenly need approval from the Central Agency for Distance Learning (ZFU)? The short answer: No - live webinars without recordings are still generally not subject to approval. But: As soon as content becomes available (asynchronous) and the learning success is monitored, a ZFU obligation may apply.

A nine-month, expensive mentoring program (approx. 47,000 euros) was chosen. The content was mainly available on demand, with assignments, corrections, question options and individual online sessions. The participant terminated the contract because there was no ZFU approval and demanded his money back. The BGH ruled in his favor: this was distance learning within the meaning of the FernUSG - and void without approval.

What applies to live webinars?

For traditional lawyer training courses that take place synchronously in real time, without replay, everything remains largely the same. The ZFU does not classify pure live formats without later retrievability as distance learning. The usual attendance checks (camera, short confirmation questions) do not change this. Result: Contracts remain valid, fees are due.

The situation becomes critical when live content is recorded and made available for later retrieval - and there is also individual or supervised learning control. This includes, for example, structured Q&A sessions with expert feedback, homework with correction or supervised forums. The result is an asynchronous, supervised learning setting. Combination of "on-demand + supervision" = ZFU subject. This also applies to continuing professional development; not only consumers are protected.

Practice check for providers

• Keep live: Synchronous, without replay - usually no ZFU obligation.
• Records? Caution: Retrievability plus supervision triggers approval.
• Define support sparingly: Technical support is okay, technical correction/coaching can be learning success control.
• Clear communication: Disclose in GTC and invitations whether there are recordings/supervision.
• Check alternatives: Offer additional live dates instead of the media library.
• Documentation: Record the decision "ZFU yes/no" with a brief explanation.

What does this mean for the legal profession?

Nothing changes for most live training courses: they remain a convenient, legally compliant alternative to face-to-face training. However, anyone planning or already running a "media library with coaching" should actively clarify the ZFU issue. Otherwise there is a risk of reversal costs and trouble - as in the BGH case.

The BGH has not condemned live webinars. It has sharpened the line: asynchronous plus supervised = distance learning = approval. Those who train live remain relaxed. Those who offer on-demand with supervision need a clean concept - and often the ZFU.

Live is simple - please leave it that way

No drama, but a wake-up call. Anyone who converts training into a streaming subscription with coaching must abide by the rules of the game. So it's better to be clear: "Better live once than endlessly on demand." If you ignore this, you run the risk that not only the course, but the entire business model will be "null and void".