The legal debate surrounding Uber drivers has so far focused on the question of whether they are in fact employees and therefore protected by labour law. A ruling by the Amsterdam Court of Appeal on 27 January 2026 shows that the reality is more nuanced. In this case, the FNV trade union asked the court to rule that Uber drivers, collectively or at least in certain groups, work on the basis of an employment contract and are therefore not self-employed.
However, the court disagreed with the FNV: after all, this case concerns drivers who have consciously chosen to work as self-employed persons. The circumstances under which drivers work are too diverse to draw the general conclusion that all Uber drivers are “bogus self-employed” (and therefore fall under employment law).
The case before the court
In the appeal before the court, six Uber drivers sided with Uber. These drivers expressly did not want to be classified as employees. They took the position that they consciously work as self-employed persons and also behave as such. The court assessed their individual situations and concluded that there was no employment contract with regard to these drivers. They are therefore “genuine” self-employed persons.
The court attached decisive importance to the entrepreneurial nature of these drivers. The drivers invest independently in their business, for example by purchasing or leasing a taxi, and they bear all the associated costs and risks themselves. They largely determine for themselves when and how they work and apply their own profitability-oriented strategy when accepting or refusing rides. In addition, they do not work exclusively for Uber, but also for other clients and their own customers. The level of their income is directly dependent on the choices they make as entrepreneurs. In economic terms, they therefore behave as independent entrepreneurs, which means that in their case, entrepreneurship outweighs elements that could generally indicate an employment contract.
The FNV's claims were aimed at obtaining a declaration that all Uber drivers, or at least certain groups of drivers, work on the basis of an employment contract. This would mean that Uber would be bound by, among other things, the collective labour agreement for healthcare transport and taxis. However, the court rejected these claims.
Although statements and studies show that some of the drivers work long hours for Uber or are heavily dependent on the platform, there is a lack of insight into other essential aspects, such as investments, cost structure, risk bearing and working for other clients. Without this information, it is impossible to determine whether the drivers are entrepreneurs or employees. The court expressly emphasises that individual drivers, depending on their specific circumstances, may indeed qualify as employees. However, this assessment requires an individual analysis and does not lend itself to a general or collective judgement.
Read the full judgment of the Amsterdam Court of Appeal here.
What did the Supreme Court say (earlier)?
Because the court in this case referred preliminary questions to the Supreme Court about the classification of employment relationships, the Supreme Court ruled on the applicable assessment criteria in its judgment of 21 February 2025. In doing so, the Supreme Court confirmed that when assessing an employment relationship, there is no hierarchy between the various aspects that play a role in this. This is in line with the earlier Deliveroo judgment of the Supreme Court of 24 March 2023. We have previously written in more detail about the background and significance of that ruling; that article can be read here In summary, entrepreneurship is not a subordinate criterion, but a fully-fledged element that can be taken into account when qualifying the employment relationship.
The court's ruling is an important addition to this and shows that the same work on the same platform can be assessed differently from a legal point of view, depending on the specific circumstances of the individual driver.
This approach is in line with the development in case law, which increasingly focuses on the actual implementation of the employment relationship rather than on general labels or collective assumptions. The court's ruling emphasises that this approach also applies in proceedings in which a collective judgement is requested.
Read the full Uber ruling of the Supreme Court of 21 February 2025 on the preliminary questions referred by the court of appeal here and the full Deliveroo ruling here.
Practical Implications
This ruling makes it clear that in the case of work via digital platforms, no collective judgement can be made about employment status when the actual circumstances of each worker differ significantly. For platforms and other clients, this confirms that the classification of employment relationships remains a matter of case-by-case assessment. For workers and interest groups, this means that a collective approach is only viable if the group concerned can be clearly defined and substantiated with facts. It is also clear that the criterion of “entrepreneurship” must be assessed on its merits.
Conclusion
As an employer or employee, do you have questions about bogus self-employment, the classification of employment relationships, working via digital platforms or adjusting policy and agreements? Please feel free to contact the employment lawyers at SPEE advocaten & mediation. We are happy to assist you.