Free: self-assessment and initial call
The self-assessment and the 15-minute initial call cost nothing. Costs arise only once we decide together that the route is worth pursuing.
Consumer · FernUSG · BGH 2024–2026
Coaching contract rescission under FernUSG.
Online coaching offered without ZFU certification may be void under the German Distance Learning Protection Act, meaning amounts paid may be reclaimable and outstanding instalments may not be enforceable. The BGH ruling III ZR 137/25 (February 2026) has narrowed this: synchronous live coaching with real-time interaction generally does not fall under FernUSG. What matters is the actual format of the programme.
We have successfully handled claims arising from online coaching contracts in many cases, both in and out of court.
Requirements
When a refund may be available.
The German Distance Learning Protection Act (FernUSG) requires state certification for distance learning. Without it, the contract may be void under § 7 FernUSG — with the consequence that amounts paid may in principle be reclaimed and outstanding instalments may cease to be owed. Under BGH III ZR 109/24 this applies not only to consumers but also to entrepreneurs. Whether your coaching counts as distance learning depends, under the BGH case law, above all on the format:
Predominantly recorded content — videos, workbooks, learning platform — with learning-success monitoring, which may already lie in a contractual right to ask questions: that points to FernUSG. Without ZFU certification the contract is then regularly void.
Live calls with a real opportunity to ask questions in real time: under BGH III ZR 137/25 that generally points away from FernUSG. A refund based on nullity is then usually unavailable; other routes remain to be assessed case by case.
Mixed programmes: individual assessment. What matters is what was contractually owed — not how you used it. Recorded live calls made available on demand afterwards count as asynchronous content.
Then there is limitation: refund claims regularly become time-barred three years after knowledge, counted from the end of the year. For contracts from 2022 onward, time may already be tight.
The case law in detail: Legal position in detail further down.
Self-assessment
Check your contract — in two minutes.
Seven questions on format, certification, payment and contract date. At the end you see whether your case falls within the refund line, rather within the live exception — or whether it needs individual assessment. Anonymous, no email, no commitment.
Check your coaching contract now ↗Then: a free 15-minute initial call if the check shows indicators.
Process
How the legal review works.
Self-assessment
Two minutes, seven questions, anonymous — eastkap.de/check. The result shows which constellation your contract falls into.
Legal review & out-of-court enforcement
If the self-assessment shows indicators, we discuss your case in a free 15-minute initial call. Where the case shows merit, we review under the mandate: contract analysis, format evidence (synchronous/asynchronous), payment history, limitation, ZFU status of the provider — with a clear recommendation on how to proceed. Where the findings hold, we demand repayment by a formal letter with a deadline; outstanding instalments and collection demands are contested at the same time. A share of cases is resolved at this stage.
Court enforcement, if needed
If the provider does not pay, we represent you in litigation. Fees are then governed by a separate agreement, at least by the statutory RVG (amount in dispute); with legal expenses insurance, usually with no out-of-pocket cost. We discuss prospects and cost risk openly beforehand.
Costs
What it costs.
Out of court: flat fee of €1,000 gross per contract
We work on a flat-fee basis: €1,000 (gross) per contract for the legal review and out-of-court enforcement — fixed in writing in advance, no open hourly billing. Included are the review of contract, format, payment history, limitation and the provider's ZFU status, the formal demand for repayment with a deadline, and contesting outstanding instalments and collection demands. Where several coaching contracts are affected, each contract is reviewed and billed as a separate module.
If you hold legal expenses insurance with a suitable module and it grants cover, the insurer usually covers the fees except for any agreed deductible; we clarify cover with your insurer in advance.
In court: under a separate agreement
If the provider does not pay, court enforcement is billed under a separate agreement, at least under the statutory RVG based on the amount in dispute — we discuss the likely cost beforehand. With legal expenses insurance, usually with no out-of-pocket cost.
Is it worth it?
That depends on the amount paid, the contract situation and any legal expenses cover. We tell you openly in the initial call whether we consider the route worthwhile — before any costs arise.
Experience
Experience from a large number of cases.
We have already handled a large number of such cases successfully, in and out of court — against providers, collection agencies and before the courts. We do not name names or details; what you entrust to us remains equally confidential.
What this means for your case:
The standard defence is "live coaching". After BGH III ZR 137/25 this is correct in some cases, but not in many — where there is significant recorded content or pacing structure, FernUSG may still apply. The contract text is decisive, not the provider's statement.
Outstanding instalments and collection demands can be contested alongside the refund claim; for active SEPA debits we assist with withdrawal and reclaim.
A share of cases is resolved out of court. Where not, we represent you in litigation — and discuss prospects and cost risk openly beforehand.
Frequent questions
What clients typically want to know.
Is my claim time-barred?
The standard limitation period is three years (§§ 195, 199 BGB), starting at the end of the year in which the claim arose and you knew the facts giving rise to it. Whether the start is exceptionally postponed because the law was uncertain until the BGH rulings is not settled and must be assessed case by case. Do not rely on it — for contracts from 2022 onward, limitation may already loom. In doubt: have it checked promptly rather than letting time run.
What about open instalments and collection demands?
If the contract is void, further instalments may cease to be owed and collection demands can be contested; whether that applies depends on the individual contract. For active SEPA debits we assist with withdrawal and reclaim.
My coaching provider says FernUSG does not apply to me.
That is the standard defence, often citing the live-call format. After 137/25 this is correct in some cases — but not where there is significant recorded content or pacing structure. Assessment of the actual contract is decisive, not the provider's statement.
How do I tell whether my format is synchronous or asynchronous?
Rule of thumb after 137/25: could you ask the coach questions in real time, without special effort, and get answers (e.g. in a live call)? That points to a synchronous format outside FernUSG. If the programme consisted mainly of on-demand videos, workbooks or time-shifted tasks — or if live calls were recorded and provided later — that points to an asynchronous format covered by FernUSG. What matters is what was contractually owed, not how you used it.
My coaching provider is insolvent or no longer reachable.
That is a reason to act sooner, not later. With an active direct debit the payment can be stopped; against collection agencies and assignees the FernUSG nullity remains a defence. If the provider is insolvent, a refund becomes harder but not necessarily hopeless — we check filing the claim in the insolvency table and any co-liable third parties (e.g. payment service providers or intermediaries).
What does the assessment cost?
The self-assessment via eastkap.de/check and the 15-minute initial call are free. Where your case shows merit, we handle the out-of-court recovery at a flat fee of €1,000 (gross) per affected contract; where several contracts are affected, each is reviewed and billed as a separate module. Where legal expenses cover exists, the insurer usually bears the cost except for any deductible.
Legal position in detail
Which coaching contracts the BGH still considers reclaimable today.
Two BGH landmark rulings shape the current case law — after the lower courts had assessed the question inconsistently. III ZR 109/24 (12 June 2025) brought structured online coaching programmes within FernUSG where knowledge is transferred and learning success is monitored — and expressly clarified that the protection covers not only consumers but also entrepreneurs.
III ZR 137/25 (February 2026) narrowed this line. Synchronous live coaching with a real opportunity to interact with the coach is generally not treated as distance learning, and the contract can remain valid even without ZFU certification.
Two BGH clarifications decide cases in practice: what matters is the contractual content, not actual use. And where live calls are recorded and made available on demand afterwards, that part counts as asynchronous — and can bring the contract back within FernUSG. A programme nominally marketed as „live" is therefore not automatically FernUSG-free.
The advisory situation has shifted accordingly. A blanket "coaching contract void, get your money back" is no longer tenable. Anyone considering a refund first needs to determine which format their contract falls into.
Three constellations, three outcomes
Predominantly pre-recorded modules with learning-success monitoring (which under the BGH case law may already exist where the contract grants a right to ask questions), no ZFU certification — still within scope of FernUSG. The contract may then be void; payments are in principle reclaimable, subject to any set-off for benefits received.
Synchronous live calls with real Q&A — no longer covered by FernUSG after 137/25. The contract remains valid; a FernUSG-based refund claim is unavailable. Other levers (defects, withdrawal, termination) may apply case by case.
Mixed format with significant recorded content or pacing constraints — requires individual assessment. The decisive question is whether the recorded portion is substantial enough to define the character of the programme.
Where the case law now stands. The Federal Court of Justice confirmed the balancing approach in III ZR 142/25 (7 May 2026): what counts is the weight of the components the contract actually owes. In 6 U 3/26 (28 July 2026, final) the Stuttgart Court of Appeal did the arithmetic — roughly 53 hours of synchronous or in-person teaching against some 31 hours of on-demand video meant no distance learning — and placed the burden of proving claimed self-study on the participant.
Reform ahead, current law unchanged. A draft bill dated 17 August 2026 provides for the FernUSG to be repealed with effect from 1 July 2027. Until then the Act applies unchanged; the draft contains no express provision for contracts already concluded, and limitation remains governed by the general rules. Analysis in German: FernUSG-Reform 2026.
As of 27 October 2026. This overview states the law in general terms and does not replace assessment of the individual case. References: BGH III ZR 109/24 (12 June 2025); III ZR 137/25 (5 February 2026); III ZR 142/25 (7 May 2026); Stuttgart Court of Appeal 6 U 3/26 (28 July 2026); draft bill of the Federal Ministry BMBFSFJ, working status 17 August 2026.
Contact
Request an initial consultation.
If the self-assessment shows refund indicators, we take over the legal work. Write to us with your key data — we will respond with concrete suggestions on how to proceed.