After the BGH ruling on coaching and the Distance Learning Protection Act: Why not every contract is automatically void

Since the ruling of the Federal Court of Justice on June 12, 2025 (Ref. III ZR 109/24), there has been great uncertainty in the coaching industry. Many former coaching clients are of the opinion that coaching contracts are automatically invalid without approval in accordance with the German Distance Learning Protection Act (FernUSG). However, this view - as currently confirmed by various courts of appeal - is too sweeping.

The BGH had expressly left open whether coaching contracts that focus on individual advice, sparring and practical implementation are covered by the law at all.

This is precisely where the lower courts come in - and they are increasingly ruling in favor of coaches.

OLG Celle: Coaching is management consulting, not teaching

The OLG Celle (reference decision of 21.08.2025, Ref. 11 U 33/25), for example, has made it clear: Coaching is not the same as teaching.

The court argued:

• Distance learning only exists if abstract knowledge is systematically taught and linked to a learning success control.
• Coaching, on the other hand, can also be practice-oriented consulting - comparable to management consulting.

This means that programs with individual sparring and implementation support are not distance learning courses that require approval. Reclaims will then come to nothing.

OLG Braunschweig: Positive signal for advisory programs

The Braunschweig Higher Regional Court (judgment of 13.08.2025, Ref. 9 U 357/24) also gives coaches a boost in a recent decision. The court differentiated as follows:

• A heavily video-based program can be considered distance learning
• However, a program that focuses on personal discussions and individual support is not distance learning and the contract is effective accordingly.

The core statement: As soon as personal advice predominates, there is no room for nullity under the FernUSG. For coaching providers, this means that those who rely on individual support still have a chance of their contract remaining legally valid and the FernUSG not being applicable, even after the BGH ruling.

LG Berlin II: Focus on consulting excludes applicability of the FernUSG

The Regional Court of Berlin II (judgment of 29.08.2025, Ref. 88 O 174/24) also ruled in favor of the coaching provider: It dismissed the claim for repayment of a former coaching customer. Here, too, the focus was clearly on individual implementation and personal support - and not on abstract knowledge transfer.

The result: The contract is valid, the FernUSG does not apply.

Conclusion: Positive case law for coaching providers

• Although the BGH has left room for maneuver, it has not established automatic nullity.
• Various lower courts (OLG Celle, OLG Braunschweig, LG Berlin) currently show that coaching with a consulting focus does not fall under the FernUSG.
• Claims for reimbursement from former coaching clients can therefore be rejected; in this case, the clients bear the cost risk.

This is good news for coaching providers. If you are confronted with unjustified reclaims or lawsuits, we will support you. Nationwide and specialized in coaching providers. Please feel free to contact us.