BGH ruling on online training: All-clear for live seminars

Admission requirement under the Distance Learning Protection Act only applies to recorded content - synchronous continuing legal education courses remain unaffected.

BGH ruling unsettles training industry

A recent BGH ruling on the German Distance Learning Protection Act (FernUSG) from June 12, 2025 (case no. III ZR 109/24) is causing uncertainty among providers of further training for lawyers. The ruling raises the question of whether online seminars require state approval from the Central Agency for Distance Learning (ZFU). The case concerned a nine-month "mentoring program" for 47,000 euros with online learning content, homework and individual support sessions. The BGH confirmed the invalidity of the contract due to the lack of ZFU approval and ordered repayment of the fees.

Definition of distance learning according to FernUSG

§ Section 1 of the Distance Learning Act (FernUSG) defines distance learning as the transfer of knowledge for a fee in which teachers and learners are "exclusively or predominantly physically separated" and the "learning success is monitored". The decisive factor here is the asynchronous nature of the teaching - content is available for retrieval with a time delay, not live in electronic form.

Clarification through ZFU guidelines

The Zentralstelle für Fernunterricht clarifies in its FAQs: "Online seminars are not subject to approval, as they take place synchronously in real time and there is no physical separation between teachers and learners within the meaning of the FernUSG."

The situation becomes critical with recordings: "However, if the synchronous measures are made available to participants as recordings, they are classified as asynchronous learning." Delayed retrieval options lead to an admission requirement. The individual learning success control is already fulfilled if "participants are given the opportunity to ask questions about the content" - including professional exchange in social networks.

Legal certainty for standard training courses

The BGH ruling means the all-clear for standard further training courses for lawyers: live online seminars without recording do not require ZFU approval. The statutory training obligations under Section 43a BRAO (general training), Section 43f BRAO (ten hours of professional law training for new entrants to the profession) and Section 15 FAO (specialist lawyer training) can still be fulfilled via synchronous online formats. Corresponding training contracts remain valid and cannot be terminated due to alleged invalidity. The obligation to pay fees remains unchanged.

Approval requirement for hybrid formats

Hybrid offers that provide recorded modules and market them as such are problematic. If there is also an individual assessment of learning success, the ZFU approval requirement applies. According to BGH case law, the FernUSG also applies to continuing vocational training.

Minimal practical impact

Nothing will change for the majority of online training courses: synchronous real-time seminars with attendance monitoring via monitored screens or online queries will remain free of admission requirements. The proven alternative to face-to-face events will continue to be available to the legal profession. Only providers with recorded content and individual support must undergo ZFU approval procedures - a hurdle that could make many specialized training courses more expensive or impossible.