After years of debate on false self-employment, the first concrete legislative change has now been adopted. On 18 June 2026, the Act Introducing a Legal Presumption of Employment Based on an Hourly Rate was passed. The Act introduces a new Section 7:610aa of the Dutch Civil Code, which is intended to strengthen the position of workers earning a low hourly rate in disputes concerning the classification of their working relationship.

The issue of false self-employment continues to evolve rapidly. Clients and self-employed individuals are faced with a range of developments, including the Deliveroo judgment, the Dutch Supreme Court’s Uber decision, increased enforcement by the Dutch Tax Authorities, the Bill on Clarification of the Assessment of Employment Relationships and the Legal Presumption of Employment (VBAR), and the plans for a new Self-Employed Persons Act (Zelfstandigenwet). Against this background, it is not always easy to determine what has actually changed and what the current legal position is.

The answer is that the new legal presumption has now indeed become law. At the same time, it is important to emphasise what this legislative change does not do. The legal presumption does not have an impact on the criteria used to determine whether a working relationship qualifies as an employment agreement. That assessment must still be made on the basis of the criteria as set out in Section 7:610 of the Dutch Civil Code and the case law of the Dutch Supreme Court, including the Deliveroo and Uber judgments. What does change, however, is the allocation of the burden of proof (bewijslastverdeling).

How did we get here?

The legal presumption of employment (rechtsvermoeden van een arbeidsovereenkomst) did not originally stand on its own. It formed one of the two pillars of the VBAR. Through this legislative proposal, the government sought to achieve two objectives. First, it aimed to provide greater clarity for workers, clients, and enforcement authorities as to when a person should be regarded as an employee and when as a self-employed person. To that end, the criteria developed in existing case law would be codified in legislation. Central to this assessment was, on the one hand, the degree of substantive and organisational control exercised by the client and, on the other hand, whether the work was performed for the worker’s own account and risk. Second, the VBAR introduced a legal presumption of employment for workers earning a low hourly rate. This would enable vulnerable self-employed individuals to more easily invoke employment protections where the factual circumstances of the working points towards the existence of an employment agreement.

In the years that followed, however, the debate surrounding the classification of working relationships continued to evolve. In its Uber judgment, the Dutch Supreme Court ruled that external entrepreneurship also constitutes a relevant factor in assessing the nature of a working relationship. Following that verdict, the VBAR was amended. External entrepreneurship ultimately became part of the primary assessment, rather than merely serving as a decisive factor in cases of doubt.

From the VBAR to the Self-Employed Persons Act

Although the qualification component of the VBAR remained at the centre of the debate for a long time, the new government opted for a different course in early 2026. According to Minister Aartsen, there was insufficient support for the clarification element of the VBAR. As a result, the government decided not to proceed with the part of the VBAR that was intended to provide statutory clarification on the assessment of working relationships. Instead, it adopted a phased approach under which the legal presumption of employment would be introduced, while further regulation of self-employment would be incorporated into the future Self-Employed Persons Act (Zelfstandigenwet). Through this approach, the government aims to provide self-employed individuals with greater legal certainty and to more explicitly recognise their position in the labour market. The contours of the Self-Employed Persons Act point towards a separate statutory framework for self-employment, including a self-employment test, a working relationship test, and a sector-specific presumption for sectors in which there is an increased risk of false self-employment. In addition, consideration is being given to the establishment of an assessment committee that could provide advance certainty regarding the classification of working relationships. This appears to marka shift in focus. While the VBAR was primarily aimed at codifying existing case law, the Self-Employed Persons Act is more explicitly concerned with the question of how self-employment can be positioned as a distinct form of work within the broader framework of employment law.

What does the new legal presumption entail?

The new Section 7:610aa of the Dutch Civil Code provides that a person who performs work for another party in return for remuneration of no more than EUR 38 per hour is presumed to perform that work under an employment agreement. The threshold amount will be adjusted periodically in line with developments in the statutory minimum wage. The presumption does not apply where the client is a private individual acting outside the course of a profession or business. The new presumption of employment under Section 7:610aa is primarily procedural in nature. A worker whose remuneration falls below the hourly threshold may invoke the presumption. In that case, it is provisionally assumed that an employment agreement exists. The burden then shifts to the client to demonstrate that, despite the relatively low hourly rate, the working relationship does not qualify as an employment relationship. If the client fails to do so, the relationship will likely be classified as an employment agreement. This is precisely where the significance of the new legislation lies. Previously, it was for the worker to state and, if necessary, prove that an employment agreement existed. Under the new regime, that burden of proof will in principle rest with the client in cases falling within the scope of the presumption. The presumption therefore does not impact the substantive criteria used to assess the nature of a working relationship, but it does change the procedural position of the parties where Section 7:610aa applies.

What does this mean in practice?

For clients, the introduction of the new legal presumption does not mean that every self-employed individual earning below the hourly threshold automatically becomes an employee. The substantive test remains unchanged. Whether a working relationship qualifies as an employment agreement must still be assessed based on all the circumstances of the case and the relevant factors identified in the Deliveroo and Uber case law, including authority and control, organisational embedding, entrepreneurial risk, and entrepreneurship. What does change, however, is the procedural position of the parties. Where a worker earning below the hourly threshold relies on the legal presumption, the client will have to demonstrate that the individual is genuinely operating as a self-employed person. This makes it even more important to ensure that the working relationship is carefully structured not only contractually, but also in practice. The introduction of the new legal presumption also demonstrates that the legislature has not abandoned its efforts to tackle false self-employment. Although the qualification framework contained in the VBAR will not be taken forward, the objective of creating greater clarity regarding the distinction between employment and self-employment remains firmly in place. The legal presumption represents the first concrete legislative measure aimed at achieving that objective.

Conclusion

After years of political debate, the first step in the reform of the self-employed sector has become a reality. The legal presumption of employment has been introduced, while the broader discussion on the classification of working relationships has been deferred to the future Self-Employed Persons Act. For clients, the substantive legal framework used to assess working relationships remains unchanged. However, their procedural position may be significantly affected where a worker, earning below the  hourly threshold, invokes the legal presumption of employment. That is precisely why this new legislation deserves attention: not because it determines when an employment agreement exists, but because it determines who bears the burden of proof in legal proceedings.

Contact us

In case you have questions, do not hesitate to reach out to the contact mentioned below or your trusted Loyens & Loeff adviser.