On January 27, 2026, the Amsterdam Court of Appeal ruled in the Uber case. The court ruled that the six Uber drivers on whose behalf this civil suit was brought do not have an employment contract with Uber, but are working as self-employed persons without personnel. The reason: these drivers involve a strong degree of entrepreneurship.
The ruling received a lot of media attention, but is the ruling as groundbreaking as suggested? The court emphasized that the qualification of the employment relationship cannot be determined in a general sense, but must be assessed for each individual driver based on the applicable facts and circumstances.
Why not an employment contract?
In its assessment, the court weighed all relevant facts and circumstances in context. This is also known as the "holistic test," as also known from the Deliveroo judgment: the court looks at the overall picture of the employment relationship, with no single criterion being decisive in advance.
In this case, the external entrepreneurship of the drivers was the deciding factor. The court considered, among other things, that:
- The substantial investments the drivers made, particularly in their car;
- The freedom to decide when to work;
- The ability to accept or refuse rides, following one's own merit strategy;
- Bearing entrepreneurial risks, such as liability and disability.
Put bluntly, investing in a car weighs differently than purchasing a bicycle. In the case of these six drivers, that made all the difference.
What about the other Uber drivers?
The court expressly leaves room for a different outcome in other cases. It considered that "it is by no means excluded" that individual Uber drivers do work on the basis of an employment contract. The court could not answer that question in general terms in these proceedings.
Thus, the ruling applies only to these six drivers. For other drivers, the concrete facts and circumstances of the individual case will always have to be considered.
Long history
The ruling is the latest chapter in a long-running legal trail. In 2021, the Amsterdam District Court found in favor of FNV by ruling that Uber drivers are subject to the Taxi Collective Bargaining Agreement. On appeal, the court ruled that the role of entrepreneurship is so fundamental that clarity on this was first needed from the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court confirmed in February 2025 that external entrepreneurship can make the difference between being an employment contract or not, even when entrepreneurs and non-entrepreneurs perform the same work. The court now applies that same line.
Consequences for Tax Authorities and pension funds
The consequences of this ruling extend beyond employment law. The Tax Authorities and pension funds will also have to assess in each individual case whether the driver is an employee or a self-employed person. This inevitably leads to casuistic assessments and uncertainty in practice, a problem that is also reflected in the discussion surrounding the DBA Act and the proposed VBAR Act.
Legislation and VBAR
The qualification of self-employed drivers also plays an important role with the new administration. In the current coalition agreement, the VBAR Act does not appear to be going forward in its original form, and the cabinet is opting for a phased approach through a new Self-employment Act. This self-employment law (at least the initiative proposal as it stands) is characterized by a strong focus on whether there are characteristics that indicate true entrepreneurship. Under the VBAR bill, that question is only one of nine relevant viewpoints
Wider practical significance than Uber alone
The Uber ruling is thus primarily a confirmation of what was already known:
- All Deliveroo criteria are potentially equally weighted;
- Entrepreneurship is an important but not always decisive criterion;
- The qualification of employment relationships remains customized.
It is notable, however, that the court gives such weight to the "entrepreneurship" element in this case.
Plan the campaign
Clients would be wise to (re)scrutinize the zzp population. The Uber case may provide you with clues that there is no question of false self-employment, especially if you work with self-employed drivers who have made investments. It is also good to assess your self-employed population on the basis of the impending Self-Employment Act. Finally, the Tax Administration's enforcement policy is highly relevant. That policy in 2026 focuses on further exploration of self-employed clients' files. The Tax Authority has announced that it will enforce penalties where there is false self-employment. Default penalties will not be imposed for the time being. Grab fines may be imposed, however.
For clients, all this means that a careful assessment of the employment relationship with zzp'ers remains essential. Naturally, we are ready to carry out this assessment with you.
Do you have any questions in response to this post? If so, please contact us through your relationship manager, by phone at 040 - 2 504 504 or using the contact form below.