Online coaching programs don’t always live up to participants’ expectations. However, there are ways to get out of a costly coaching contract. This is demonstrated by a ruling of the Higher Regional Court of Stuttgart on August 29, 2024. The court ruled that the participant is entitled to a refund of nearly €24,000 already paid for the online coaching and is not required to make any further payments.
In a landmark ruling dated March 1, 2023, the Higher Regional Court of Celle decided that contracts for online coaching can be void if the coach or provider does not have a license under the Distance Learning Protection Act (FernUSG). ” The Higher Regional Court of Stuttgart followed this view in its ruling ,” says attorney István Cocron.
In the underlying case, the plaintiff had entered into a contract for several months of business coaching at a cost of €40,000. After a few weeks, he realized that the online coaching did not meet his expectations. The provider refused to terminate the contract. However, the participant’s lawsuit was successful at the Higher Regional Court of Stuttgart.
The Higher Regional Court ruled that the online coaching contract violated the Distance Learning Act and was therefore void. The plaintiff was thus entitled to a refund of the fees already paid for the coaching and was not required to make any further payments.
The Higher Regional Court reasoned that the concluded contract fell under the Distance Learning Protection Act. It found that the typical characteristics, such as the payment of a fee for the provision of knowledge and the predominantly geographical separation of the participants from the coach, were present. This was because the coaching was conducted primarily through instructional videos and online meetings. Furthermore, the participants had the opportunity to ask questions during the online meetings or in group chats. This also allowed for monitoring of learning progress.
The Higher Regional Court of Stuttgart (OLG Stuttgart) ruled that the contract fulfilled all the requirements to fall under the Distance Learning Protection Act. This means that the provider must possess the necessary accreditation for distance learning courses. ” This accreditation is rare and was present in this case,” stated attorney Cocron. The OLG Stuttgart therefore decided that the contract was void pursuant to Section 7 Paragraph 1 of the Distance Learning Protection Act and that the plaintiff would receive a refund.
Besides a violation of the Distance Selling Act (FernUSG), other reasons can justify terminating a coaching contract. Attorney Cocron explains: “ A contract is also void if it is immoral. Immorality exists when there is a gross disparity between the performance and the consideration. ”
