The German Distance Learning Protection Act (FernUSG): Current Case Law and Practical Impacts
The German State Central Office for Distance Learning (ZFU) is also of central importance for modern online formats and B2B offerings.
In its ruling of June 12, 2025 (III ZR 109/24), the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) significantly expanded the scope of the German Distance Learning Protection Act (FernUSG) to include digital training, coaching, and mentoring services, while also clarifying that the Distance Learning Protection Act is not limited to traditional distance learning courses. The sole determining factor is whether the statutory elements are met. At the same time, the BGH confirmed that the scope of protection is not limited to consumers, but that contracts with companies, freelancers, and the self-employed also fall under the Distance Learning Protection Act. It follows that the licensing requirement of the German State Central Office for Distance Learning (ZFU) is also of central importance for modern online formats and B2B offerings.
When does distance learning exist within the meaning of the Distance Learning Protection Act?
According to Section 1(1) of the Distance Learning Protection Act, distance learning is the provision of knowledge and skills on a contractual basis for a fee, in which the instructor and the learner are exclusively or predominantly physically separated (No. 1) and the instructor or their representative monitors the learner’s progress (No. 2).
The scope of application of the Distance Learning Protection Act is interpreted very broadly by case law: a physical separation is deemed to exist if more than 50 percent of the program is conducted as asynchronous instruction. For the monitoring of learning progress, the mere possibility of (one-time) individual questions or feedback is sufficient; actual use is not required. The law does not stipulate minimum content requirements or a specific course duration. Online coaching and B2B training are also expressly covered.
Requirement for Approval
If distance learning exists in the sense described above, approval by the German State Central Office for Distance Learning (ZFU) is generally required (Section 12(1) Distance Learning Protection Act).
The only exceptions to the licensing requirement are:
- Free offerings
- Hybrid learning formats with more than 50 percent in-person component (extent of in-person phases relative to the total duration of the course)
- Purely informational events (because there is no systematic assessment of learning outcomes)
- Programs for leisure activities or entertainment (Section 12(1) Distance Learning Protection Act).
For many providers of digital training, undergoing such licensing procedures with the ZFU involves significant time and financial resources.
Legal and practical risks in the absence of accreditation
If the required ZFU accreditation is missing, the contracts are void (Section 7(1) Distance Learning Protection Act), meaning that participants are then entitled to a refund of payments already made. In addition, fines of up to 10,000 euros may be imposed (Section 21(2) Distance Learning Protection Act), as well as a significant risk of receiving a warning notice under competition law, since a violation of the licensing requirement constitutes an illegal commercial practice under the German Act against Unfair Competition (UWG). In the worst-case scenario, training programs offered without the required accreditation may be prohibited.
The actual risk that companies without the required accreditation will be fined is rather low. However, a warning notice under competition law represents the greatest actual risk.
Recommendations for Providers of Digital Training
Given this very broad interpretation of the German Distance Learning Protection Act, providers of digital training programs without ZFU accreditation would be well advised to conduct a legal review of existing formats and make strategic decisions early on to avoid payment and warning risks.
The following strategies, among others, are recommended:
- Conducting an inventory, including recording all existing training courses and verifying whether learning assessment is provided
- Clarifying the licensing requirement or adapting the training concept, e.g., hybrid events with more than 50 percent in-person participation or live offerings without recording and feedback options
- Review and adapt the wording of contracts and terms and conditions
- Implement compliance processes, i.e., regularly review offerings for compliance with the Distance Learning Protection Act particularly in the event of changes regarding the method of knowledge transfer
At the same time, initiating a ZFU accreditation process may be advisable to demonstrate, in the event of a dispute, that the provider has not remained inactive.
