Online coaching offered without ZFU certification may be void under the German Distance Learning Protection Act, meaning amounts paid can be reclaimed and outstanding instalments are not enforceable. The BGH ruling III ZR 137/25 (February 2026) has narrowed this: synchronous live coaching with real-time interaction generally does not fall under FernUSG. What matters is the actual format of the programme.
Run the 2-minute check →Two BGH landmark rulings shape the current case law — after the lower courts had assessed the question inconsistently. III ZR 109/24 (12 June 2025) brought structured online coaching programmes within FernUSG where knowledge is transferred and learning success is monitored — and expressly clarified that the protection covers not only consumers but also entrepreneurs.
III ZR 137/25 (February 2026) narrowed this line. Synchronous live coaching with a real opportunity to interact with the coach is no longer considered distance learning, and the contract remains valid even without ZFU certification.
Two BGH clarifications decide cases in practice: what matters is the contractual content, not actual use. And where live calls are recorded and made available on demand afterwards, that part counts as asynchronous — and can bring the contract back within FernUSG. A programme nominally marketed as „live" is therefore not automatically FernUSG-free.
The advisory situation has shifted accordingly. A blanket "coaching contract void, get your money back" is no longer tenable. Anyone considering a refund first needs to determine which format their contract falls into.
Predominantly pre-recorded modules with learning-success monitoring (which under the BGH case law may already exist where the contract grants a right to ask questions), no ZFU certification — still within scope of FernUSG. The contract is then typically void; payments are in principle reclaimable, subject to any set-off for benefits received.
Synchronous live calls with real Q&A — no longer covered by FernUSG after 137/25. The contract remains valid; a FernUSG-based refund claim is unavailable. Other levers (defects, withdrawal, termination) may apply case by case.
Mixed format with significant recorded content or pacing constraints — requires individual assessment. The decisive question is whether the recorded portion is substantial enough to define the character of the programme.
As of February 2026. This overview states the law in general terms and does not replace assessment of the individual case. References: BGH III ZR 109/24 (12 June 2025); III ZR 137/25 (5 February 2026).
At eastkap.de/check a seven-question form determines which constellation your contract falls into. You see at the end whether a refund is likely, whether the format puts you in the 137/25 line, or whether an individual assessment is needed. Two minutes, anonymous, no email required.
If the self-assessment shows indicators, we take over the legal work: contract analysis, format evidence (synchronous/asynchronous), payment history, limitation, ZFU status of the provider. Where the indicators hold, we demand repayment by a formal letter with a deadline; outstanding instalments and collection demands are contested at the same time. A share of cases is resolved at this stage.
If the provider does not pay, we represent you in litigation. Fees are then governed by the statutory RVG (amount in dispute); with legal expenses insurance, usually with no out-of-pocket cost. We discuss prospects and cost risk openly beforehand.
We work on a flat-fee basis: €1,000 (gross) for the legal review and out-of-court enforcement — fixed in writing in advance, no open hourly billing. If you hold legal expenses insurance with a suitable module and it grants cover, the insurer usually covers the fees — except for any agreed deductible; we clarify cover with your insurer in advance. Any court proceedings are billed under the statutory RVG (based on the amount in dispute) — we discuss the likely cost beforehand.
The standard limitation period is three years (§§ 195, 199 BGB), starting at the end of the year in which the claim arose and you knew the facts giving rise to it. Whether the start is exceptionally postponed because the law was uncertain until the BGH rulings is not settled and must be assessed case by case. Do not rely on it — for contracts from 2022 onward, limitation may already loom. In doubt: have it checked promptly rather than letting time run.
If the contract is void, further instalments are not owed. The provider's collection demands can be contested. For active SEPA debits we assist with withdrawal and reclaim.
That is the standard defence, often citing the live-call format. After 137/25 this is correct in some cases — but not where there is significant recorded content or pacing structure. Assessment of the actual contract is decisive, not the provider's statement.
Rule of thumb after 137/25: could you ask the coach questions in real time, without special effort, and get answers (e.g. in a live call)? That points to a synchronous format outside FernUSG. If the programme consisted mainly of on-demand videos, workbooks or time-shifted tasks — or if live calls were recorded and provided later — that points to an asynchronous format covered by FernUSG. What matters is what was contractually owed, not how you used it.
That is a reason to act sooner, not later. With an active direct debit the payment can be stopped; against collection agencies and assignees the FernUSG nullity remains a defence. If the provider is insolvent, a refund becomes harder but not necessarily hopeless — we check filing the claim in the insolvency table and any co-liable third parties (e.g. payment service providers or intermediaries).
The self-assessment via eastkap.de/check is free. The subsequent legal work is done at a flat fee of €1,000 (gross); where legal expenses cover exists, the insurer usually bears the cost except for any deductible.
If the self-assessment shows refund indicators, we take over the legal work. Write to us with your key data — we will respond with concrete suggestions on how to proceed.
Daniel Wagner, Attorney at Law
Kiehlufer 9
12059 Berlin
+49 170 9926903