5,0/5 Google · 167 reviewsWe do not check reviews of us on other platforms that we do not quote verbatim for authenticity. They may therefore also come from people who are not our clients. The rules of the respective platform apply. Reviews that we quote verbatim on our website, by contrast, have been checked for authenticity within the meaning of Section 5b(3) UWG (German Act against Unfair Competition): we compared the reviewers’ names with our client register. We also asked the respective platform to check the reviews for authenticity.Period: October 2016 to date · As of: 28 October 2026
Have your online coaching contract reviewed
What counts is the model you sell, not its name.
You sell coaching, mentoring, courses or a membership. From the provider's perspective, we review the contract, offer page, funnel, live and video elements, T&Cs, withdrawal, payment model and the ZFU question, and build your line for launch, existing contracts or the defence against repayment claims. We review your online coaching contract based on the model you actually sell.
Please enter a short description first.
The first contact is free of charge. Before any costs arise, we will explicitly inform you.
Response within 24 hours on working days
As of: 23 October 2026
FernUSG check of a mentoring programme1 of 5
- Service promiseWebsite says course, contract says consultingCheck
- Live calls recordedAvailable later as a moduleMissing
- Feedback on assignmentsCheck
- ZFU approvalMissing
- T&Cs and withdrawalPresent
Point of review: Website, contract and delivery contradict each other
- 1Classify offeringContract and funnel
- 2Receive optionsRestructuring, ZFU, defence
- 3ImplementContract or defence
Schematic illustration of a FernUSG review. Simplified example.
We advise providers such as
- Coaches
- Course providers
- Digital academies
- Agencies
Key points at a glance
- If an online offering is classified as distance learning and there is no ZFU approval, the contract is void under Section 7 FernUSG (German Distance Learning Protection Act) and participants can reclaim payments.
- Labels such as coaching, mentoring or membership offer no protection.
- What matters is which service promise is sold and how it is delivered.
- ITMR reviews contract, offer page, funnel and delivery together, because contradictions between them make the model vulnerable.
- You receive a line for restructuring, ZFU strategy, existing contracts or the defence against specific repayment claims.
- Your contact is Timocin Can and his team. He is a lawyer. Response within 24 hours on working days.
- SaaS
- Software as a Service. Software used over the internet rather than installed.
Providers under pressure
When should online coaching providers act?
A coaching contract becomes risky long before a court reviews it. It becomes critical with instalment stops, repayment demands, letters from lawyers, scaling via paid ads, or when documents, funnel and delivery do not follow the same line.
Review the contract before the next dispute over instalments or repayment.
Coaching, mentoring, masterclass, academy, online course or membership are not legal shields. What counts is the service promise: building knowledge, teaching skills, personal support, implementation help, course access, community, assignments, feedback, live calls, recordings or a combination.
Economically, this distinction is central for providers. If the required approval for distance learning is missing, payment claims, existing contracts and repayments come under pressure. That is why the review starts with the product architecture and not with individual clauses.
In our experience, the risk lies in contradictions. The website says course, the contract says consulting, the funnel promises transformation, the delivery includes video access and feedback. These breaks make offerings vulnerable, even with the best clause.
- For whom
- Providers of coaching, courses, memberships
- Provision
- Sections 1, 7, 12 FernUSG
- Authority
- State Central Office for Distance Learning (ZFU)
- Risk
- Nullity and repayment
Clear classification
Send the contract and offer page via the form. We will get back to you within 24 hours on working days.
How it works
How do we review your coaching model?
Three steps from classification to implementation or defence.
01
Classify offering You send the contract, offer page, funnel, T&Cs, payment model and programme structure. We examine where FernUSG, ZFU, withdrawal, T&C or repayment risks arise.
02
Receive options You receive a clear assessment: continue to use, restructure, examine a ZFU strategy, secure existing contracts, adjust communication or defend against repayment claims.
03
Implement We support contract revision, offer structure, communication, defence against claims, settlement or court proceedings.
How the provider line is built in detail
- 1
Secure the documents Contract, T&Cs, offer page, funnel, sales documents, course overview, payment model, communication, screenshots, platform structure and live and video elements.
- 2
Assess risks Is the focus on teaching knowledge, consulting, implementation help or a hybrid model? What role do questions, feedback, customer support and recordings play?
- 3
Prioritise options Contract restructuring, offer adjustment, approval strategy, communication guidelines, settlement, defence against claims or preparation for litigation.
- 4
Roll out in a controlled way New contracts and offerings go live consistently. Existing cases get their own line for documentation, communication and defence.
How long does it take? We complete most work steps within a few working days. How quickly it goes depends on the scope and your feedback. Do you have a fixed date, such as a launch? Tell us right away in your enquiry and we will plan for it.
Service package
What do we do for coaching and course providers?
Service package: coaching contract
FernUSG check Service promise, course structure, live and video elements, assignments, community, customer support, feedback and main focus of the contract.
ZFU-Strategie Whether approval, product restructuring, separate offer lines, changed delivery or a different risk structure is the more obvious choice.
Contract and T&Cs Coaching contract, T&Cs, withdrawal, term, payment plan, termination, service description and conclusion process.
Funnel and offer page Landing page, webinar, sales deck, email sequences, testimonials, promises of success, bonuses and checkout.
Defending repayment claims Claim letters, instalment stops, repayment demands, objections, settlement options, evidence and litigation risk.
Existing contracts and scaling Ongoing contracts, open receivables, documentation, need for adjustment and future sales structure before further growth.
- For whom
- Coaches, agencies, course providers, digital academies
- First response
- within 24 hours on working days
- Costs
- We tell you the costs transparently before you instruct us.
- Not included
- Advice for participants. We represent providers.
Who delivers what and who decides
- Contract and T&Cs
- Offer page and funnel
- Programme structure
- Letters of claim
- FernUSG and ZFU review
- Contract drafting
- Defence against claims
- Settlement strategy
- You, on restructuring and sales
- The ZFU, on approval
- In a dispute, the court
How does the engagement work?
- 1
First assessment You send documents using the form. We assess where you stand. The first contact is free of charge.
- 2
Offer Before work begins, we tell you the scope and costs transparently.
- 3
Court steps separately Court proceedings and representation against participants are agreed separately if you wish.
Client situations
In which situations do providers come to us?
We see three situations particularly often in our mandates.
Participants demand money back, stop payments or invoke the FernUSG, missing ZFU approval, withdrawal or invalid terms.
An offering is to be sold more strongly via funnel, webinar, sales call or ads and must be robust beforehand.
Videos, live calls, community, assignments, workbooks, customer support and contract are to be adjusted so that the model is less vulnerable.
Checkpoints
What do we clarify before every contract revision?
A new document alone does not make the contract secure. Contract, offer page, sales call, platform, payment model, service description and delivery must fit together.
- Learning objective Is a specific build-up of knowledge, skills or competence being sold?
- Format Which parts run live, which as video, recording, workbook, platform access or community?
Feedback Are there questions, feedback, assignments, corrections or individual responses?
Target group Is the offering B2C, B2B or effectively mixed?Dispute status Are there open instalments, repayment demands, terminations or letters from lawyers?Consistency Do T&Cs, withdrawal, term, payment plan and service description match the delivery?
Risk zones
What makes coaching offerings vulnerable?
We see these patterns in reviews and disputes.
Sold without review The offering promises a structured build-up of knowledge but was sold without a FernUSG and ZFU review.Recordings as a course Live calls are recorded and later made available as part of the course.Learning support Participants receive assignments, workbooks, answers to questions, feedback or support on learning content.Inconsistent description Sales claims, website and contract do not describe the same product.
Instalments and high prices Instalment payments and high package prices increase the interest in escalation and repayment.Outdated documents T&Cs, withdrawal, termination, term and payment plan come from older versions.B2B as an assumption The offering is treated as a B2B model without FernUSG risks having been ruled out.Hasty response Providers respond with goodwill, refusal or remediation without considering the evidence and follow-on cases.
Decision framework
Which four provider decisions do we support?
Each situation has its own legal focus and its own mandate objective.
Focus on FernUSG, ZFU, conclusion of contract, withdrawal, T&Cs, service description and payment model. The goal is a model that is less vulnerable from the outset.
Focus on funnel, sales claims, platform, recordings, community, customer support and contract status. The goal is less risk before more traffic or a higher package price.
Focus on the nullity objection, ZFU question, withdrawal, evidence, compensation for value, settlement and litigation risk. The goal is a fast, economically sensible line of defence.
Focus on the main focus of the contract, synchronous and asynchronous elements, monitoring of learning success and offer architecture. The goal is consistent contracts, communication on existing contracts and products.
ZFU and restructuring
Seek approval, restructure the offering or defend it?
We rarely see only one right response. Some models need an approval strategy, others a clearer service structure, separate offer lines or a different contract structure. In a dispute, the defence may take priority.
If an offering teaches knowledge in a structured way and has typical features of distance learning, the ZFU question has to be openly addressed.
For future offerings, we realign contract content, offer page, live structure, recordings and customer support.
In an ongoing dispute, what counts are the evidence, the main focus of the contract, communication, litigation risk and knock-on effects.
Next routes
When is another service package a better fit?
In our experience, online coaching is usually one part of a larger digital business model.
For digital contract structures, platforms, software, SaaS and IT-related service models.
For digital products, checkout, sales, T&Cs, pricing and rescission.
For contract terms, checkout processes, withdrawal, term and method of payment.
For service relationships focused on software, platforms or SaaS.
Legal framework
Which rules apply to online coaching?
Under Section 1 FernUSG (German Distance Learning Protection Act), distance learning exists if knowledge or skills are taught for payment, teachers and learners are predominantly physically separated and learning success is monitored. Under Section 12 FernUSG, distance learning courses require approval from the ZFU.
If the required approval is missing, the contract is void under Section 7 FernUSG. In 2025, the Federal Court of Justice ruled that the FernUSG can also apply to online coaching and to business participants. The assessment remains case-specific and starts with the specific contract, offering and model.
- Section 1 FernUSG Scope of application and features of distance learning.
- Section 7 FernUSG Nullity where approval is missing.
- Section 12 FernUSG Approval requirement for distance learning courses and material changes.
- State Central Office for Distance Learning (ZFU) Competent authority for approval and information.
Defending repayment claims
How do you respond correctly to a repayment claim?
You should neither pay repayment claims reflexively nor reject them across the board.
- 1
Clarify the facts first Does the specific offering meet the critical features? Which documents apply, what was sold, what evidence is available?
- 2
The first response shapes follow-on cases With similar contracts, the first response can trigger further cases or prepare a robust line of defence and settlement.
- 3
Individual case and existing contracts together The review brings together the individual case, the risk in existing contracts and the future offer structure.
Immediate questions in the event of a repayment claim
- What claim is being made, and which documents does the participant have?
- Which version of the contract and offer page applied, and which live, video and support elements were agreed?
- Are there further possible follow-on cases?
Your contact
Lawyer · IT law · Social media law · E-commerce
View profile Düsseldorf, Schirmerstraße 80 · Hamburg, Palmaille 124
ReviewsWe do not check reviews of us on other platforms that we do not quote verbatim for authenticity. They may therefore also come from people who are not our clients. The rules of the respective platform apply. Reviews that we quote verbatim on our website, by contrast, have been checked for authenticity within the meaning of Section 5b(3) UWG (German Act against Unfair Competition): we compared the reviewers’ names with our client register. We also asked the respective platform to check the reviews for authenticity.
What clients say
5,0 von 5 · 71 Bewertungen auf anwalt.dePeriod: October 2018 to date · As of: 28 October 2026
“Mr Can represented me excellently in a difficult and lengthy case. His ability to spot the decisive details even in the most complex situations is remarkable.” (translated from German)
“Super fast and helpful support in our matter! I would definitely recommend them!” (translated from German)
“Very nice helpful lawyer, who wanted to hear personally what it was about!! Then because it is not his area of expertise he gave me tips and a recommendation to help!!!” (translated from German)
FAQ
What questions do providers ask about the FernUSG and coaching?
Does every online coaching fall under the FernUSG?
No. It becomes critical when knowledge or skills are taught for payment, teachers and participants are predominantly physically separated within the meaning of Section 1 FernUSG, and questions, support or monitoring of learning success are provided for.
What applies until the planned abolition of the FernUSG is explained in our article FernUSG facing the end .
Is it enough to call the offering mentoring or consulting?
No. What matters is the content of the contract, the offer page, the delivery and the service promise. Mentoring is also open to challenge if it is in fact sold as a structured learning programme.
Is B2B coaching automatically less risky?
No. The case law of the Federal Court of Justice and ZFU practice show that FernUSG questions can also be relevant for business participants.
When does ZFU approval become an issue?
When a paid offering teaches knowledge or skills in a structured way and includes videos, modules, assignments, recordings, community, questions or feedback.
What should you do first when facing a repayment claim?
Secure the contract, offer page, T&Cs, payment status, communication, course structure, delivery and records. We then examine whether the claim is legally justified and which response makes economic sense.
Do new T&Cs secure the contract?
In our experience, new T&Cs alone are not enough. If product promises, funnel, course structure and delivery create a FernUSG risk, the service description, offer page, checkout process and delivery must also be adjusted.
When should an online course be reviewed before launch?
Before the first sale, at the latest before paid ads, webinar funnels, instalment payments, community, video library or scaling. The earlier, the easier it is to align the model.
Do you also review ongoing programmes?
Yes. It is then about the risk in existing contracts, open receivables, repayment demands, future contracts and a consistent line for communication, sales and defence.
Next step
Should your coaching model be legally assessed?
If you are already selling, a launch is imminent or repayment claims are putting you under pressure, the review does not end with the template contract. Offering, sales, contract and delivery must together form a robust provider line. We combine e-commerce, IT law, platform operation, T&Cs, payment model and defence against claims.
Helpful for your enquiry
- Contract and T&Cs
- Offer page or funnel
- Programme structure with live and video elements
- Letter of claim, if any
You can also submit documents after our first response.
Have coaching contract reviewed
Send the contract and offer page. We assess FernUSG and repayment risks.
Helpful are the contract, T&Cs, offer page, payment model, programme structure and, where applicable, the letter of claim.
Related services
E-Commerce-Recht Digital products and sales.Terms and conditions Contract terms and checkout processes.IT contract and software contract Software and platform contracts.IT law & digitalisation Digital business models.
From our blog: FernUSG facing the end · Classification of online coaching as distance learning