Dutch Platform Work Bill 2.0

Dutch Platform Work Bill: when does the legal presumption of employment apply?

Author: Sonia Sglimbea
Date: 17 August 2026
Last updated: 17 August 2026

What is the Dutch Platform Work Bill?

The Dutch Platform Work Bill (Wet platformwerk) is intended to implement Directive (EU) 2024/2831 on improving working conditions in platform work.

The proposal addresses two connected problems. First, it aims to make it easier to determine whether a person working through a digital labour platform is genuinely self-employed or should legally be treated as an employee. Second, it introduces rules concerning the use of automated monitoring and decision-making systems by platforms.

The Dutch government identifies false self-employment as one of the risks associated with the growth of platform work. A person may formally work as an independent contractor while the actual working relationship contains characteristics of an employment relationship. In such situations, the person may incorrectly fall outside employment-law, social-security and pension protections.

The proposal therefore introduces a rebuttable legal presumption of employment specifically for persons performing platform work. It also introduces requirements relating to algorithmic management, personal-data processing, human oversight and transparency.

Why is a legal presumption being introduced?

Under the normal Dutch employment-classification framework, the actual facts and circumstances of the working relationship determine whether an employment contract exists.

For platform workers, however, proving that the actual relationship amounts to employment can be difficult. The worker may have less access to information concerning how assignments, prices, ratings and restrictions are determined by the platform.

The proposed legal presumption is therefore primarily a procedural tool. It does not create a new definition of employment and does not mean that platform workers automatically become employees.

Instead, it is intended to make it easier for a person performing platform work to establish an employment relationship where factual indications of direction and supervision (leiding en toezicht) exist. The government expressly states that the substantive classification of the relationship remains governed by Article 7:610 of the Dutch Civil Code.

When can a platform worker rely on the legal presumption?

The draft proposal uses five criteria which indicate factual direction and supervision by a digital labour platform.

A person performing platform work must demonstrate that at least two of the five criteria are satisfied in order to successfully activate the proposed legal presumption.

1. The platform determines or influences the remuneration

The first criterion concerns control over the worker's remuneration.

It may be satisfied where the platform determines the rate or meaningfully influences the amount that the worker receives.

The government considers genuine freedom to negotiate remuneration to be an important characteristic of independent entrepreneurship. Therefore, simply allowing a worker to refuse a job does not necessarily create genuine negotiating freedom if the platform still effectively determines the price.

The explanatory memorandum also indicates that algorithmic pricing can amount to influence over remuneration. By contrast, where the worker and end client genuinely negotiate the price without platform influence, this criterion would normally not be satisfied.

2. The platform determines the allocation or assignment of work

The second criterion concerns who decides which worker receives which assignment.

If the platform determines how assignments are distributed, this may indicate managerial authority.

This can also occur through an algorithm. For example, an algorithmic system that decides which assignments are shown to particular workers may influence the allocation of work even where the platform does not manually assign individual jobs.

3. The platform supervises the performance of the work

The third criterion concerns monitoring or supervision.

A genuinely independent worker would generally determine how the work is performed. If the platform monitors the worker's performance, including through algorithmic systems, this may therefore indicate an employment relationship.

Ratings can be relevant here. A simple system allowing customers to leave feedback is not automatically sufficient. However, where the platform uses ratings to build a worker profile and subsequently uses that profile to monitor performance or influence the worker's position, the situation becomes more relevant for classification.

4. The platform restricts the freedom to accept or reject assignments

The fourth criterion concerns whether the worker is genuinely free to refuse work.

The criterion can be satisfied where refusal produces negative consequences. These consequences do not have to take the form of a traditional disciplinary sanction.

For example, the explanatory memorandum identifies situations in which workers who reject assignments subsequently stop receiving lucrative assignments or receive lower average remuneration.

Therefore, the relevant question is not only whether the worker can technically press a "reject" button, but whether refusing work has practical negative consequences.

5. The platform imposes specific binding rules

The fifth criterion concerns mandatory rules imposed by the platform regarding:

• the worker's appearance;

• behaviour towards the customer; or

• how the work must be performed.

Examples can include mandatory clothing or branding, prescribed interactions with customers, or detailed instructions concerning how tasks must be carried out.

Rules that merely require compliance with generally applicable legal health and safety obligations do not, by themselves, satisfy this criterion.

What happens once two criteria are met?

Meeting two criteria does not conclusively establish employment.

Instead, the legal presumption becomes applicable. A significant part of the evidential burden then shifts from the worker to the digital labour platform, which must provide evidence capable of rebutting the presumption.

Under the current system, a worker claiming employee status generally bears the burden of demonstrating that an employment relationship exists. The government expects the proposed mechanism to shift a substantial part of this burden towards the platform once the legal presumption has been activated.

The platform can still rebut the presumption by demonstrating that, considering the working relationship as a whole, the requirements for an employment contract are not satisfied.

The purpose is therefore not to classify more people as employees automatically. The purpose is to make it easier to establish employee status where an employment relationship already exists in substance.

What does this mean for intermediary and staffing structures?

The proposed rules are particularly relevant where a platform worker is placed through an intermediary.

EU rules require that the use of an intermediary must not reduce the level of protection available to a person performing platform work.

Where the worker has a contractual relationship with the intermediary rather than directly with the platform, the proposed presumption may be invoked against the intermediary.

In such a structure, however, the factual relationship with both the intermediary and the digital labour platform may be relevant. The draft explanatory memorandum explicitly recognises that material authority does not necessarily have to be exercised by the contractual employer itself. Authority may, for example, be exercised by another party in the chain.

Depending on the contractual and factual structure, the relationship could potentially qualify as an employment, temporary-agency or payroll relationship. Ultimately, determining which party should legally be treated as the employer remains a matter for the competent authority or court based on the particular arrangement.

For intermediaries, this makes it important to analyse who actually exercises the relevant control, rather than looking only at which entity signs the freelancer agreement.

Why are algorithms relevant to worker classification?

Algorithms are relevant in two different ways.

First, algorithmic management can provide evidence relevant to classification. An algorithm may influence remuneration, allocate work, monitor performance or penalise workers for rejecting assignments. These activities correspond directly with several of the proposed criteria for the legal presumption.

Second, the Bill introduces separate obligations regulating algorithmic management itself.

Digital labour platforms would have to provide information concerning automated monitoring and automated decision-making systems to persons performing platform work, worker representatives and, where applicable, competent authorities. Workers must also be informed about systems that directly affect their working conditions, organisation of work or monitoring of performance.

This means that the same algorithmic features that create compliance obligations may also provide evidence relevant to whether the relationship resembles employment.

Can an algorithm suspend or terminate a platform worker?

Under the proposal, certain important adverse decisions cannot be made exclusively by an automated system.

A human must make the actual decision to restrict, suspend or terminate a worker's contract or platform account, as well as other decisions producing comparable adverse effects.

Automated systems may provide information supporting such a decision, but the final decision must be taken by a person.

Persons performing platform work also have a right to an explanation regarding decisions taken or supported by automated systems. Where a decision affects their contract or account, the platform must provide written reasons.

The worker may request review of such a decision, and the platform must respond in writing within a maximum of two weeks.

Does the proposed law apply to cross-border platforms?

Yes.

The proposal applies where the platform work is performed in the Netherlands, regardless of where the digital labour platform itself is established and regardless of which law the contract states is applicable.

The explanatory memorandum describes these provisions as overriding mandatory rules for situations falling within their scope.

This means that using a foreign entity or choosing foreign law in the contract would not, by itself, remove Dutch platform workers from the protection of the proposed legislation where the platform work is performed in the Netherlands.

What should a platform or intermediary check in practice?

For false-self-employment risk assessment, the proposed framework makes five operational questions particularly important:

1. Who controls the price?
   Can the worker genuinely negotiate remuneration, or does the platform determine or materially influence it?

2. Who controls access to work?
   Does the worker independently obtain assignments, or does the platform or its algorithm decide which assignments are offered?

3. Who monitors performance?
   Are ratings, tracking, performance scores or other systems used to supervise the worker?

4. What happens when the worker says no?
   Can assignments genuinely be rejected without losing access to future work, income or opportunities?

5. Who determines how the work is done?
   Are workers subject to binding instructions concerning appearance, customer interaction or execution of tasks?

If two or more of these factors are present, the proposed Dutch legal presumption may become relevant. This does not automatically mean that there is an employment contract, but it substantially increases the importance of analysing and documenting the factual relationship.

When will these rules enter into force?

Directive (EU) 2024/2831 requires Member States to implement the Directive by 2 December 2026.

However, the Dutch government has already stated in the draft Explanatory Memorandum that completing the legislative process by that deadline is no longer considered feasible. The government intends to implement the Directive as soon as possible afterwards.

The exact entry-into-force date of the Dutch Platform Work Act will therefore be determined separately by Royal Decree.

The proposed legal presumption will not have retroactive effect. It will apply only to the period after the Dutch legislation enters into force, including where the underlying contract was entered into before that date.

This distinction is important: the absence of retroactive application of the new presumption does not mean that earlier working relationships cannot already qualify as employment under existing Dutch law. The ordinary employment test continues to apply independently of the new legislation.

Disclaimer

This knowledge item is intended solely for informational purposes. It describes the Dutch Platform Work Bill and associated consultation documents available as of 17 August 2026.

The Bill is still undergoing the legislative process and its provisions may change before adoption. This document does not constitute legal advice. For a specific legal issue or classification assessment, qualified legal advice should be obtained.

Sources

Dutch Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment – Internet consultation: Wet platformwerk.

https://www.internetconsultatie.nl/wetplatformwerk/b1

Draft Explanatory Memorandum – Wet platformwerk.

https://www.internetconsultatie.nl/wetplatformwerk/document/15829

Beleidskompasformulier voor internetconsultatie – Wetsvoorstel platformwerk.

https://www.internetconsultatie.nl/wetplatformwerk/document/15828

Directive (EU) 2024/2831 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2024 on improving working conditions in platform work.

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2024/2831/oj/eng?utm