Uber drivers: Entrepreneurship clashes with employment contract

A recent ruling by the Amsterdam Court of Appeal on Uber shows that the Deliveroo framework remains the basis, but that the outcome can change if “entrepreneurship” is firmly and concretely substantiated.

As in Deliveroo, the court bases its ruling on Section 7:610 of the Dutch Civil Code and the well-known principles: you determine whether someone is an employee by weighing up all the circumstances together, without a fixed order of priority. In an earlier interim judgment, the court had already ruled in general terms that the elements pointing towards an employment contract outweigh the contraindications, but that (external) entrepreneurship could tip the balance.

Since the Supreme Court ruling in 2025, one point has become particularly clear: entrepreneurship (point ix from Deliveroo) is not “by nature” more important than other circumstances, but it can make a difference in the overall assessment. As a result, the court in this case must also consider circumstances that do not relate exclusively to the platform relationship. In practice, questions such as the following often arise: does the person make substantial investments (e.g. in a car), does the person have multiple clients, does the person recruit their own customers, what is their tax position, and does the person really bear the costs and risks?

The court applies this in concrete terms in this case. The trade union demanded (in summary) a declaration that all drivers are employees and that the Taxi Transport Collective Labour Agreement therefore applies, with the associated allowances. However, for the drivers who are the focus of these proceedings, the court concludes that there is no employment contract because their entrepreneurship is strongly substantiated. The court cites, among other things: substantial investments (such as the car), freedom in working hours, their own strategy for accepting/refusing rides and associated earnings, and risks of liability and incapacity for work.
 
At the same time, the court does not rule out the possibility that there may be individual drivers who should be regarded as employees. However, due to a lack of sufficient concrete data on individual circumstances, the court was unable to identify individual drivers or clearly defined groups to whom this would apply. As a result, no general judgement can be given on the compensation claimed.

In short: Deliveroo remains the benchmark, but this ruling shows that well-documented entrepreneurship can really tip the balance and that broad, general claims without hard facts about (groups of) drivers are more likely to fail.
 
If you have any questions about your self-employed contracts, please contact Tessa Sipkema, Elke Hofman-Bijvank or Dennis Oud.

You can read the ruling here.