The Netherlands Trade Union Confederation (FNV) brought proceedings, arguing that Uber drivers should be classified as employees under the collective labour agreement for the taxi sector. Uber countered that its drivers are self-employed professionals. The deeper question was: how should courts approach workers who present themselves as entrepreneurs, yet whose working conditions are largely dictated by the platform?

The framework was established in the Deliveroo judgment of 24 March 2023 [1]. Courts must look beyond the label on the contract and weigh all circumstances holistically, including the nature of the work, organisational integration, authority, economic dependency, and genuine entrepreneurial risk.

On 21 February 2025 [2], the Supreme Court confirmed in FNV v. Uber that entrepreneurship can be decisive, but only when genuine. The ruling confirms three things:

no hierarchy exists among the Deliveroo indicators;
entrepreneurship must be assessed broadly, including economic dependency on one or more clients; and
two drivers performing identical tasks may receive different legal classifications depending on their individual circumstances.

Following referral by the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal ruled on 27 January 2026 [3] that the drivers in question were genuine entrepreneurs: they owned their vehicles, set their own hours, chose which rides to accept, and bore genuine risks of liability and incapacity. No employment contracts existed.

No general ruling, however, can be given for Uber drivers as a group. A driver working exclusively for Uber, with limited freedom to decline rides and no independent client base, may be classified as an employee (entitled to back pay, holiday allowances, and dismissal protection).

The Uber puzzle therefore remains unsolved as a matter of principle, and that is precisely the point. The label on the contract does not determine the outcome, the reality of the working relationship does, one driver at a time. The courts have laid the pieces on the table. How they fit together, and which piece ultimately completes the picture, must be determined case by case, driver by driver.

[1] Supreme Court 24 March 2023, ECLI:NL:HR:2023:443.

[2] Supreme Court 21 February 2025, ECLI:NL:HR:2025:319.

[3] Court of Appeal 27 January 2026, ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2026:163.

Maaike Koot is a lawyer at TK and part of the international corporate employment law team. Maaike advises on reorganisation and dismissal, (collective change of) employment conditions, sickness and reintegration, temporary employment law and management agreements.

contacts

Christine M. Hollinden

publications

GGI FYI Best Practices News No 06 January 2025