{"id":8423,"date":"2026-04-01T10:30:09","date_gmt":"2026-04-01T08:30:09","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/winheller.com\/blog\/en\/?p=8423"},"modified":"2026-04-01T10:30:11","modified_gmt":"2026-04-01T08:30:11","slug":"live-online-courses-not-distance-learning-germany","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/winheller.com\/blog\/en\/live-online-courses-not-distance-learning-germany\/","title":{"rendered":"Live Online Courses Are Not Always Considered Distance Learning in Germany"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Digital educational offers remain a legally sensitive area for nonprofits in Germany<\/a><\/strong>. After the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) broadly interpreted the scope of the Distance Learning Protection Act (FernUSG) in 2025, it has now provided an important clarification: Not every online format automatically constitutes distance learning<\/strong>. Rather, the decisive factor is how the specific offering is structured contractually. Genuine live online formats involving direct interaction between instructors and participants generally do not automatically fall under the FernUSG.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Distance education as defined by the Distance Learning Protection Act<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

According to Section 1(1) FernUSG, distance education occurs when knowledge and skills are transmitted on a contractual basis for a fee<\/strong>, instructors and learners are exclusively or predominantly physically separated<\/strong>, and learning progress is monitored<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The practical significance of this classification is considerable: If a distance learning course requiring approval lacks the necessary approval<\/strong> under Section 12 of the Distance Learning Protection Act, the contract is void<\/strong> pursuant to Section 7(1) FernUSG. The BGH had already clarified in its ruling of June 12, 2025, that the law is not limited to consumer contracts but may also apply in the business sector.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

BGH: Live communication indicates no physical separation<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The case recently decided involved an online training program priced at approximately EUR 8,000. The offer included access to a learning platform with videos, a messenger group, video calls with a coach, and regular video conferences or live calls. There was no authorization<\/strong> under Section 12 FernUSG. The participant therefore demanded a refund of the fees and argued that the contract was void.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Would you like to receive news like this in your inbox every month? Subscribe to our newsletter \u201cGerman Nonprofit Update\u201d.<\/a><\/h4>\n\n\n\n

In this context, the German Federal Court of Justice has interpreted the term \u201cphysical separation\u201d in a teleological manner. According to this interpretation, teachers and learners are not considered spatially separated under the FernUSG merely because knowledge is transmitted online. Rather, the decisive factor is whether the instruction does not take place via bidirectional synchronous communication, in which the participant \u2013 similar to a face-to-face class \u2013 can contact the instructor<\/strong> without any particular effort. Pure or predominantly live formats with genuine real-time communication therefore argue against distance learning as defined by the law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Contractual structure is decisive<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Of particular importance is the BGH\u2019s further clarification that the legal classification depends not on the subsequent actual implementation, but on the contractually agreed structure<\/strong> of the program. Caution is therefore particularly warranted in the case of hybrid or mixed models<\/strong>. If a program includes recorded content, learning platforms, or other asynchronous modules in addition to live elements, the Distance Learning Protection Act may still apply. In the case at hand, the BGH therefore did not conclusively determine that distance learning was not taking place, but rather overturned the appellate ruling and returned the case for further review.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Greater legal certainty \u2013 but no relief for hybrid formats<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

The ruling provides greater legal certainty<\/strong>, particularly for genuine live online seminars, webinars, and continuing education formats. This applies, for example, where<\/p>\n\n\n\n