Stop the panic-mongering: Why not all online coaching is "distance learning"

Coaching is not the same as sitting at a school desk: Federal Court of Justice sends a clear message

Online coaching is booming—and with it, legal questions. Does every provider now need to be licensed under the Distance Learning Protection Act (FernUSG)? Can every customer simply cancel their contract by referring to Section 627 of the German Civil Code (BGB)? Or even more drastically: Is the contract ultimately void?

These were precisely the questions at stake when an advertising agency took Baulig Consulting GmbH to court. The allegations: fraudulent misrepresentation, illegal distance learning, and an irrevocable gag contract. However, the Regional Court of Cologne, then the Higher Regional Court of Cologne, and now the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) have made it clear that it is not that simple.

No test, no report card—and therefore no distance learning either

The key point: the coaching program was not "distance learning" within the meaning of the FernUSG. Why? Because there was no contractually agreed assessment of learning progress. But that is precisely what matters. The judges say: just because knowledge is imparted does not necessarily mean that distance learning is involved.

WhatsApp support, live calls, group feedback—all of these things may help with learning, but they are no substitute for systematic testing or grading. If you don't provide a certificate, report card, or test, you're not doing distance learning—you're doing counseling or coaching.

This may sound technical, but it has enormous consequences: if it is not distance learning, then the FernUSG does not apply. This means: no special right of termination, no need for approval by the State Central Office for Distance Learning (ZFU), no automatic nullity of the contract.

Relationship of trust? Not with structured coaching

The defendants were also unsuccessful with the popular wild card from the German Civil Code (BGB) – Section 627, i.e., "Termination for reasons of higher importance." The reason: The coaching was structured, contractually planned, and institutionally organized. It was therefore not a matter of a personal, sensitive relationship of trust, such as with a therapist or private lawyer. So here too: No special right of termination.

What this means for the coaching industry

The decision makes it clear that not all coaching constitutes educational provision within the meaning of the FernUSG. Rather, it depends on the exact terms of the contract—above all, on the question: Is learning success monitored by the provider?

For reputable coaches, this is a liberating move. The days of blanket attacks along the lines of "Your contract is void anyway, you don't have ZFU accreditation" are likely to be over. At the same time, however, it is also clear that those who advertise with exams, degrees, and certificates are playing in a different league—and may also have to be measured by different standards.

Our classification

It was long overdue for someone to put limits on this veritable remote ultrasound hysteria. The Federal Court of Justice elegantly stayed out of it—but ultimately confirmed the ruling of the Higher Regional Court of Cologne by refusing to hear the case. And that's a good thing. Those who rely on YouTube videos, Zoom calls, and group support should not be treated like a distance learning school with final exams. Coaching is not a classroom—and that's a good thing.

Source: anwalt.de