Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf: No admission, no claim – repayment enforceable!
In a ruling dated July 29, 2025, the Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf decided that a costly online tax coaching program violates the Distance Learning Protection Act (FernUSG) and is therefore invalid. The decision strengthens the position of consumers who have booked such programs and sends a clear signal to the entire coaching industry.
the Case: Unauthorized Distance Learning
A participant in the “Next-Level Coaching” program was asked to pay a total of around €12,000 – including collection and late payment fees. He refused to pay, citing the Distance Learning Act (FernUSG). The court ruled in his favor: The coaching consisted almost entirely of digital content such as videos, webinars, learning materials, and a certificate of completion – characteristics of a distance learning program requiring licensing.
Since the provider could not produce official authorization under the German Distance Selling Act (FernUSG), the Higher Regional Court declared the contract void. Therefore, all payment obligations are waived – including reminder and collection fees.
What does this mean for consumers?
Anyone who has subscribed to expensive online coaching programs in recent years – for example, in the areas of finance, taxes, or business start-up – should check (or have checked) whether these programs constitute unauthorized distance learning requiring a license. According to current case law, such contracts are invalid.
Specifically, this means:
✅ No payment obligation
✅ Amounts already paid are refundable.
🚫 No obligation to reimburse collection fees
When does a claim for reimbursement arise?
Whether a claim for reimbursement exists depends on the individual case. Decisive factors include, for example:
- Digital Knowledge Transfer
- No physical presence required
- Interactive Elements or Final Checks (e.g. Certificates)
- No Approval According to the German Distance Learning Act (fernusg)
Anyone who recognizes themselves in this description should seek legal advice.
Conclusion:
The ruling shows that coaching providers must comply with legal requirements. Affected consumers can take action and, under certain circumstances, recover payments already made.
Cocron Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG, with offices in Berlin and Munich, offers an initial legal assessment. Further information can be found at www.ra-cocron.de .
Consumer tip:
Have costly online coaching contracts legally reviewed – especially if they involve extensive knowledge transfer or lack authorization.
