Becoming a cryptocurrency expert through online coaching sounds appealing, but it didn’t work for one participant. However, she wasn’t left out of pocket. The Munich Regional Court ordered the online coaching provider to refund the €1,500 in fees already paid to the plaintiff.
Contracts for online coaching can be invalid if the coach does not possess the required accreditation under the Distance Learning Protection Act (FernUSG). This applies not only when the contract is concluded as a consumer, but also when it is concluded as a business. The Higher Regional Court of Celle (OLG Celle) ruled accordingly in a landmark judgment on March 1, 2023. Several other courts have already adopted this precedent, including the Regional Court of Munich (LG Munich) in its judgment of January 15, 2025.
When the plaintiff entered into the contract, she was unemployed. The prospect of becoming a cryptocurrency expert through online coaching seemed appealing. However, her enthusiasm quickly faded, and she wanted to terminate the contract. She stated that she had been overwhelmed by the advertising for the coaching on social media and the online negotiations with the coach, who presented himself to her as a financial expert.
The operator of the online coaching platform insisted, however, that a valid contract had been concluded. The Distance Learning Protection Act was not applicable, they argued, because the plaintiff had entered into the contract as a business founder and thus as an entrepreneur. The protective purpose of the Distance Learning Protection Act, however, only encompassed consumers. Furthermore, the plaintiff had waived her right of withdrawal when concluding the contract.
The Munich Regional Court, however, reached a different conclusion and largely upheld the claim. First, it determined that the plaintiff had not been adequately informed about her right of withdrawal when the contract was concluded. In any case, the Distance Selling Act (FernUSG) was applicable to the contract, even if the plaintiff were considered a businessperson.
The online coaching offered falls under the category of distance learning. Accordingly, the coaching provider must also possess the required license under the Distance Learning Act (FernUSG). However, this was not the case here, the Munich Regional Court (LG Munich) determined. Contracts for distance learning are therefore void pursuant to Section 7 Paragraph 1 of the Distance Learning Act (FernUSG).
The court ruled that the regulation should also apply to the case at hand. The plaintiff was in a difficult financial situation at the time the contract was concluded due to her unemployment. Even if she intended to establish a new livelihood through the online coaching, this did not make her significantly less vulnerable than a consumer. Therefore, the Distance Selling Act (FernUSG) also applies to individuals who are not consumers as defined by the German Civil Code (BGB). The Munich Regional Court (LG Munich) ruled that the online coaching provider must therefore reimburse the plaintiff for the fees already paid.
“ Online coaching programs often fail to deliver on their promises. This ruling shows that there are ways to terminate a coaching contract ,” says lawyer István Cocron. A contract can be void not only for violating the Distance Selling Act (FernUSG), but also for being contrary to public policy. Under certain conditions, revocation of the contract may also be possible.
