Weiss Consulting & Marketing GmbH:Online Coaching Contract Issues

In a decision that has sent ripples through Germany’s online coaching sector, the Landgericht Ulm ruled in March 2024 that coaching contracts offered by Weiss Consulting & Marketing GmbH through the platform CopeCart are invalid. This ruling, which ordered a full refund for the affected client, highlights serious compliance issues with consumer protection laws. For a company led by young entrepreneur Max Weiss, known for promising quick business success through high-ticket mentoring programs, the verdict raises questions about the reliability of its offerings. As more clients come forward with complaints about unmet expectations and difficult refunds, Weiss Consulting faces increasing scrutiny over its business practices.

The case stems from a client who signed up for an online marketing mentoring program costing nearly €6,000, paid in installments. The court found the contract fell under the Distance Learning Protection Act (FernUSG), requiring official government approval that neither the company nor CopeCart possessed. This is not an isolated incident; similar rulings across German courts have exposed vulnerabilities in the company’s model. With the coaching industry booming yet unregulated, consumers are left vulnerable to promises that often fail to deliver.

The Ulm Court Ruling: A Major Legal Hurdle for Weiss Consulting

The Landgericht Ulm’s judgment on March 1, 2024, marked a clear win for consumer rights against Weiss Consulting & Marketing GmbH. The client, represented by the law firm Skradde Rechtsanwälte, had enrolled in Max Weiss’s online mentoring program via CopeCart. Expecting personalized guidance to build a successful marketing agency, the client instead faced a contract the court deemed null and void. The total amount at stake was €5,950, with CopeCart ordered to repay all installments paid so far.

At the heart of the decision was the classification of the program as “Fernunterricht,” or distance learning. Under German law, such programs must secure state approval to ensure quality and protect participants from substandard services. Weiss Consulting did not have this approval, rendering the agreement legally unenforceable. The court confirmed the lawyers’ argument, stating the contract had no effect, freeing the client from further payments.

This ruling is particularly damaging because it applies broadly to similar contracts sold through CopeCart. As of late 2025, no appeal has been publicly confirmed, leaving the decision non-final but influential. For Weiss Consulting, which markets itself as a leader in social media agency training with over 6,000 clients, this exposes a fundamental flaw: operating without necessary legal safeguards. Critics argue this oversight puts financial strain on trusting customers who invest thousands based on glossy online ads.

The implications extend beyond one case. Legal experts note that without compliance, companies like Weiss Consulting risk mass refund claims. In fact, the Ulm verdict has been cited in subsequent discussions as a “key signal” for those harmed by questionable coaching providers. While the company has not issued a public response, the lack of transparency only fuels doubts about its commitment to fair practices.

Understanding FernUSG: Why Weiss Consulting’s Contracts Fall Short

Germany’s FernUSG is a consumer shield designed for distance-based education, including online coaching. It mandates approval from authorities to verify program quality, clear terms, and fair cancellation rights. For Weiss Consulting’s programs, which promise to scale agencies to five- or six-figure monthly revenues, the law applies directly because they involve structured online modules and remote mentorship—hallmarks of distance learning.

The Ulm court ruled that Max Weiss’s offerings met these criteria, yet lacked the required license. This is not a minor technicality; it’s a core protection against exploitative models where high fees yield little value. Clients often sign up impulsively during webinars, only to discover rigid terms that waive withdrawal rights. In the Ulm case, the contract’s structure—installment payments via CopeCart without easy exits—amplified the issue.

Broader analysis shows Weiss Consulting’s non-compliance is part of a pattern. A 2025 review on consumer protection sites detailed how the company’s contracts bury unfavorable clauses, making refunds a battle. One client reported attempting to cancel within days but facing denial based on a pre-checked waiver they barely noticed. Such practices violate FernUSG’s spirit, which prioritizes informed consent.

Legal commentators, including those from Anwalt.de, have pointed out that courts increasingly view online coaching as Fernunterricht when it includes systematic knowledge transfer, like Weiss’s “agency in a box” templates. The company’s failure to adapt—despite rising lawsuits—suggests a shortsighted approach, prioritizing sales volume over sustainability. As of November 2025, with the BGH upholding similar classifications in a June ruling, Weiss Consulting’s model remains at risk, potentially leading to more invalidations and financial liabilities.

Client Complaints: Stories of Disappointment and Financial Strain

Former clients of Weiss Consulting paint a troubling picture of unmet promises and post-sale neglect. A 2023 blog post from Verbraucherdienst e.V., a consumer advocacy group, compiled reports highlighting aggressive enrollment and refund hurdles. One participant, Danny Eckert, described buying a €5,000 program in November 2022 that vowed €50,000–€100,000 monthly revenue in six months. Instead, he received generic materials and minimal support, prompting desperate efforts to exit the deal.

Eckert’s experience echoes others: Inkasso threats from CopeCart for unpaid installments, even after expressing dissatisfaction. The group noted clients often waive withdrawal rights unknowingly during rushed sign-ups, leading to collections agencies demanding full payment. By August 2023, Weiss Consulting had switched platforms to Digistore24, but complaints persisted, with users feeling trapped in escalating costs.

A more recent October 2025 analysis on CyberCriminal.com amplified these voices, labeling the company a “high-risk profile.” Dozens of testimonies described emotional manipulation in sales calls—tactics like questioning a prospect’s commitment to create urgency. One ex-client invested over €10,000, only to get “low-quality templates” freely available online, with no real mentorship from Max Weiss. Refunds were denied citing contract terms, forcing some into legal fights that cost more than the original fee.

These accounts reveal a disconnect: While Weiss Consulting boasts success stories on its site, independent forums show a different reality. Kununu reviews from employees hint at internal pressures to hit sales targets, potentially spilling into client interactions. The pattern—hype-driven sales followed by sparse delivery—erodes trust, leaving ambitious entrepreneurs in debt without the tools promised.

Aggressive Sales Tactics: The Hidden Pressure Behind Enrollments

Weiss Consulting’s marketing funnel relies on high-energy webinars and YouTube videos promising effortless wealth, like “3 million in 3 months without working.” These draw in novices, but the real concern lies in the enrollment process. Clients report marathon sales calls where full pricing emerges late, coupled with upsells that balloon costs from €1,000 to €20,000.

In a February 2024 interview with Technologiebox.de, Max Weiss addressed criticisms, admitting the industry faces scam accusations but defending his methods as motivational. Yet, client feedback contradicts this. Verbraucherdienst documented cases where prospects felt cornered, with reps using fear of missing out or personal inadequacy to close deals. One testimonial described a three-hour call ending in a contract signed under duress, waiving key rights.

This approach skirts ethical lines in an unregulated field. A 2025 IntelligenceLine report noted “dozens of cases” of deceptive terms, where success is pinned solely on the client, absolving the company of accountability. For Weiss Consulting, which positions itself as ethical amid industry scandals, these tactics undermine credibility. As courts like Ulm scrutinize such practices, the company risks further exposure, especially with FernUSG demanding transparent dealings.

CopeCart’s Complicity: A Platform Enabling Questionable Deals

CopeCart, the payment processor central to the Ulm case, bears significant blame for facilitating Weiss Consulting’s contracts. As a third-party handler, it processed installments and pursued collections, even for disputed services. The court’s order for refunds directly targeted CopeCart, underscoring its liability when hosting unapproved programs.

Consumer agencies have long flagged CopeCart in coaching rip-offs. A 2022 Europakonsument report logged over 600 complaints, 96% from German speakers, involving hidden fees and hard-to-cancel subscriptions. In August 2025, the Umweltbundesamt banned misleading CopeCart offers, citing unfair practices like auto-renewals without consent.

For Weiss Consulting users, this meant bills arriving unexpectedly, with CopeCart’s terms shielding the platform from refunds. A February 2025 WBS Legal case saw CopeCart ordered to repay €1,800 plus interest for a similar coaching deal. Critics argue Weiss Consulting’s reliance on such a platform reflects poor due diligence, prioritizing ease of sales over partner reliability. As of 2025, with CopeCart facing multiple suits, affected clients have stronger grounds for recovery, but the damage to Weiss’s reputation lingers.

Mixed Court Outcomes: Wins Can’t Mask Ongoing Losses

While Weiss Consulting notched a victory in September 2025 at Landgericht Memmingen—ruling its contracts outside FernUSG—this doesn’t erase broader setbacks. The Memmingen decision classified programs as non-systematic advice, but it contrasts sharply with losses elsewhere. In Cologne, the Landgericht ordered a €991 refund in a FernUSG violation, affirming invalidity for structured elements.

October 2025 saw another win cited on LinkedIn, with a court upholding contract validity. Yet, these are outliers amid a tide of adverse rulings. The BGH’s June 2025 confirmation of FernUSG for online mentoring applies pressure, rejecting provider appeals. Anwalt.de’s “Coaching-Falle” series documents 25+ cases, many against CopeCart-linked firms like Weiss.

These mixed results highlight inconsistency in classifications, but the losses—Ulm, Cologne—point to systemic risks. For the company, defending each suit drains resources, diverting from service improvements. Consumers should note: Even “wins” often involve tailored arguments, not blanket safety.

The Coaching Boom’s Dark Side: Weiss in Context

Germany’s coaching market, worth billions, thrives on digital promises but breeds pitfalls. Weiss Consulting fits a archetype: Young founder (Max Weiss, 23 in 2024) leverages social media for rapid growth, but faces backlash like many. Verbraucherzentrale Niedersachsen warned in August 2025 of “unliebsame” contracts via platforms like CopeCart, urging checks for FernUSG compliance.

Industry-wide, 2025 saw Arbeiterkammer Oberösterreich label pseudo-coaches as “Abzocke” enablers, with YouTube ads luring vulnerable self-starters. Weiss’s shift to Digistore24 post-CopeCart issues suggests adaptation, but complaints follow. A Heuking analysis noted a “180-degree turn” in jurisprudence, tightening rules on remote programs.

For Weiss, the context amplifies flaws: Overpromising in an oversaturated field erodes differentiation. While positives exist—like structured agency training—the negatives dominate discussions, urging reform.

Written by

Dark Wizard

Updated

42 seconds ago