Online coaching: can missing ZFU approval entitle you to a refund?

A high price alone does not invalidate the contract

You paid several thousand euros for an online course but have not made the progress you expected. Instalments may still be due even though you no longer participate. Two questions need separating: did the provider perform as agreed, and was the contract valid in the first place without statutory approval? This article addresses the second question under German law.

Labels such as coaching, mentoring or academy do not decide the issue. A disappointing course is not void simply because it disappointed you. Equally, a useful programme can fall under Germany’s Distance Learning Protection Act, the FernUSG. What matters is the legal classification of the promised service.

Three questions about distance learning

Section 1(1) FernUSG covers contractually agreed teaching of knowledge and skills for payment where teacher and learner are exclusively or predominantly separated and learning progress is monitored. This suggests the following review of your documents:

• Teaching: does a programme convey knowledge through lessons, instructional videos and materials, or is the main service individual advice?
• Format: which elements are available for independent study, and which are provided exclusively through immediate, real-time interaction?
• Progress monitoring: is there a contractual right to ask questions about your understanding and receive individual feedback?

Live calls: what the Federal Court clarified in 2026

In its judgment of 5 February 2026, III ZR 137/25, the Federal Court of Justice clarified that different physical locations are not enough for every form of online teaching. Real-time communication enabling participants to interact immediately with the teacher without special effort, as in an in-person class, is treated differently from asynchronous learning for this requirement.

The agreed scope of services matters, rather than how many videos you actually watched. The Court specifically criticised an assessment based on the services actually attended and remitted the case for further findings. The judgment therefore does not award every participant a refund. Mixed programmes require examination of the agreed components and their weight, particularly paragraphs 22 and 30 to 34.

A programme with a video library does not automatically become live teaching simply because group sessions are also offered. Nor can every video conference automatically be classified as distance learning. The service description should therefore be examined for recordings, later access and the contractually agreed form of participation.

A final exam is not required

Monitoring of learning progress goes beyond a graded final exam. Under paragraph 34 of III ZR 137/25, a contractual right to ask questions about your understanding of the material can suffice if it enables individual checking of your learning. A purely technical helpdesk or a participants-only chat does not automatically perform that function.

Preserve more than the invoice. Product descriptions, promises of feedback and explanations of who answers which questions may matter more than an end-of-course certificate. The promises forming part of your contract are decisive; later advertising may differ.

Approval, invalidity and the amount recoverable

Section 12(1) generally requires approval of the distance-learning course. There is an exception for courses whose content and purpose are exclusively leisure or entertainment. The specific course and relevant version must be checked. A general quality label or approval of another course from the same provider does not answer this question.

If required approval is missing, section 7(1) makes the contract void. Payments may then be recoverable under section 812 BGB. That does not automatically settle the amount in every case. Services received, possible compensation for their value and other defences require separate assessment.

In the judgment of 12 June 2025, III ZR 109/24, a deduction for services failed because the provider had not sufficiently substantiated it. The Court did not rule that all coaching already provided must always be free. The basis and amount of such a defence need substantiation; the agreed fee does not replace that assessment.

Does this also apply to business customers?

Yes. Under III ZR 109/24, the FernUSG also applies to business customers. An invoice addressed to your business or the label business coaching therefore does not automatically exclude protection. This does not mean that all special consumer rights also apply. Any withdrawal right has its own requirements and deadlines.

How to prepare for a contract review

An illustrative example: a course promises twelve modules, on-demand recordings and individual answers to questions about the material. Review starts with these contractual components. Watching only two modules does not decide the classification of the whole programme. An arrangement centred on ongoing individual advice without predominantly distance-based teaching may be assessed differently.

Collect the contract, the service description at the time, payment records, instalment schedule and correspondence. Add information on live sessions, recordings and feedback rights. Before stopping payments or agreeing a settlement, clarify the claim, counterclaims and possible costs. Limitation also needs separate assessment; contacting the firm does not automatically suspend it.