Money back for crypto coaching: This judgment strengthens customers of online coaches

Via internet coaching to: On Krypto-Expert: in Werden and then quickly get rich? Sounds too beautiful to be true. But one thing: in the ceremony, still fell into a crypto coach and booked its long-distance teaching program for 1,500 euros.

The matter was not really good and the customer went to court – with success. The Munich District Court has now ruled (judgment of 15.01.2025, Az. 44 O 16944/23, not not legally binding) and condemned the initiator to repay the 1,500 euros. The lack of approval was justified. In addition, the customer was able to rely on the law to protect the participants in remote lessons (remote teaching protection law (FernusG)).

The customer said that she – herself unemployed – had tempted and overrun on social media due to the advertising of the platform operator. The coach, with whom she negotiated online as a financial expert, also depicted it. The opposite side argued that the FernusG was not applicable because the plaintiff had signed the contract as a start -up and should therefore be treated as an entrepreneur. In addition, the customer acted actively on her right of withdrawal.

Is coaching considered long -distance lessons?

The court saw it differently and even argued that the customer may not have been sufficiently informed about her right of withdrawal. The judges also judged that the coaching provider had offered long-distance lessons without having the necessary authorization.

In fact, many other coaching offers could also mean that customers have the right to withdraw from the contract later or to sue corresponding repayments of the fees. The district court judged that in this case it is particularly important to increase protection against providers: inside, whose performance can be checked poorer than that is otherwise the case due to the spatial distance.

Ultimately, the court saw the unemployed customer, who was in a difficult economic situation, a special need for protection, similar to an end user. According to the reasoning, this applies even if it were assumed that it wanted to build up a existence in the field of e-commerce with coaching. The said FernusG is therefore also applicable to non-consumers: inside (i.e. business-to-business customers: inside). The court did not work only in a partial aspect that named an intangible compensation for a claimed loss of control of the plaintiff about her data during the ordering process.

The judgment cannot be applied directly to other cases, but will surely be used in the future when it comes to remote coaching and similar programs. This should apply to both 1: 1 coaching and webinar programs with interaction character.

5 errors about financial freedom