Why does price negotiation matter when assessing freelance status?
Published on:
A freelancer’s ability to propose a price and agree commercial terms can support evidence of entrepreneurship. It does not prove independent status by itself. Dutch courts consider both how remuneration is determined and its level, together with the wider working relationship. This Knowledge Item explains the relevant cases, the distinction between negotiation and accepting an offer, forthcoming legislation and how to preserve a useful record from a freelancer profile and client request through to the service agreement.
1. Why is the way a price is agreed legally relevant?
Price negotiation can show that a freelancer operates as a service provider making commercial decisions: what to offer, what to charge and which conditions to accept.
In Deliveroo, the Supreme Court expressly included the way remuneration is determined and paid, and its level, among the relevant classification circumstances. The way the contractual arrangement came into being also matters.
The assessment therefore concerns more than whether the freelancer clicked “accept”. Who proposed the price? Could the freelancer submit a different offer? Did the parties discuss scope, expenses, responsibility or payment terms? What happened when they disagreed?
These questions sit alongside authority, organisational integration, personal performance, commercial risk and other circumstances. Price negotiation is part of that assessment, rather than a separate exemption.
Explanation
A freelancer might offer a research report for a stated fee. The client asks for a lower price, and the freelancer offers a narrower scope instead. That exchange reveals a commercial choice about both the service and its price. It does not answer how the client will direct the work once the assignment starts. The agreement and its execution both need attention.
2. What do the relevant court cases show?
Deliveroo: payment per task did not prevent employment. The Supreme Court’s 2023 judgment upheld employment status. The couriers’ remuneration arrangements formed part of the wider assessment. Payment per delivery did not establish entrepreneurship.
Bouwprofs: setting a rate formed part of evidence supporting independence. In the 20 December 2022 judgment, particularly paragraphs 6.9–6.14, the court considered evidence that the professional set a rate and Bouwprofs discussed it with the client. If the client considered it too high, Bouwprofs returned to the professional. The court found no employment or temporary-agency employment contract with Bouwprofs, also considering other rights, obligations and risks.
Uber: entrepreneurship has no subordinate position. The Supreme Court’s explanation of its 21 February 2025 judgment confirms that the relevant circumstances have no fixed hierarchy. Entrepreneurship, including circumstances outside the specific relationship, can be decisive in a particular case.
Explanation
Bouwprofs illustrates why the actual process matters: an intermediary discussing a price with a client does not necessarily mean the intermediary sets the freelancer’s price. It also shows why the participants must be identified accurately. The court assessed the relationship with Bouwprofs; that outcome cannot simply be transferred to every relationship involving an intermediary.
3. Must a freelancer always negotiate or secure a higher price?
No general rule requires every freelancer to bargain over every assignment. A freelancer may publish a price that a client accepts immediately. Conversely, a freelancer may accept a client’s genuinely non-negotiable offer after making a commercial assessment.
Record the process accurately. A proposal accepted without changes is an agreed price; it is not evidence of several rounds of negotiation. Accepting a standard rate should not be presented as setting that rate independently.
Negotiation can also concern the services included, expenses, payment timing, a price cap, cancellation or responsibility for additional work. These terms help explain the commercial arrangement, provided they have real practical significance.
Joint negotiations with other freelancers raise a separate competition-law question. ACM guidance identifies situations in which collective arrangements are permitted or enforcement protection applies; these should not be confused with ordinary individual negotiation.
Explanation
A client can have a budget, and a freelancer can decide that the offered work is commercially worthwhile. That alone proves neither employment nor independence. There is no reason to stage a counteroffer merely to produce evidence. A truthful record of a straightforward agreement is more useful than an artificial negotiation.
4. Do the proposed Zelfstandigenwet and hourly-rate presumption change this?
As of 3 November 2026, the Zelfstandigenwet remains a proposal. It seeks to clarify when work can be performed independently through a self-employment test and a work-relationship test. Negotiating a price alone would not satisfy those combined requirements.
The hourly-rate presumption is a separate enacted measure. Its commencement is set for 31 December 2026, so it is not yet in force on the date of this item.
Government guidance uses €38 per hour at the 1 January 2026 reference level, subject to statutory indexation. Once effective, a worker paid at or below the applicable threshold can invoke a rebuttable presumption of employment. The other party must then establish that the relationship is not employment.
Explanation
A negotiated low rate does not switch off the forthcoming presumption. A high rate does not guarantee freelance status. Keep the questions separate: how the fee was agreed, what its level is, and how the work is organised. Each can matter for a different reason.
5. How can Zooly help preserve the record from proposal to service agreement?
For a workflow using Zooly or another freelance management system, the following information provides a useful basis for recording the commercial process. Check which functions are available in the configured environment.
Freelancer profile. Record the services the freelancer offers and any indicative prices, rate structure or standard terms. Distinguish a general indication from the offer for a particular assignment.
Client request for proposals (RFP). Retain the original request, including scope, intended outputs, timing and any budget or maximum rate. Make clear which terms are open to discussion.
Freelancer proposal. Retain the freelancer’s offer, proposed services, price, assumptions and relevant alternatives. Identify who submitted it and whether an intermediary acted on the freelancer’s authority.
Discussion and agreement. Preserve relevant messages, revisions, counteroffers and acceptance. Identify the author and date of each material change. Where discussions take place elsewhere, retain the relevant correspondence or an accurate agreed record.
Service agreement and later changes. Connect the accepted proposal to the final service agreement. Record the price, scope, payment terms and responsibility for additional work. Preserve relevant amendments and their approval.
This describes the evidence the workflow should preserve. It does not establish that Zooly currently provides every listed function, automatic version control or a complete export facility.
Explanation
Suppose a client requests an analysis within a stated budget. A freelancer proposes a smaller first phase, explains the fee and offers a separately priced follow-up. The client accepts, and the service agreement reflects that proposal. The resulting record explains who offered what and how agreement was reached. Its usefulness comes from the real decisions it records.
Sources
- https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0005290/
- https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/details?id=ECLI:NL:HR:2023:443
- https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/details?id=ECLI:NL:HR:2025:319
- https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/details?id=ECLI:NL:GHARL:2022:11051
- https://www.internetconsultatie.nl/verduidelijkingzelfstandigenwet/b1
- https://zoek.officielebekendmakingen.nl/stb-2026-207.html
Disclaimer
The information provided in this article is for general informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal, tax, or employment advice. Labor and classification regulations (such as the Dutch Wet DBA and EU directives) are highly complex, fact-specific, and subject to frequent changes and changing administrative policies. Reading this content does not create an attorney-client or advisory relationship with Zooly. Before making any decisions regarding contractor engagement, compliance frameworks, or classification policies, you should always consult a qualified local employment lawyer or tax professional. Zooly accepts no liability for any actions taken or decisions made based on the information provided on our website.
Editorial Note & AI Disclosure
In compliance with Article 50 of the EU AI Act, we disclose that artificial intelligence (AI) tools were utilized to assist in compiling, legal screening, and drafting this content. However, to ensure absolute legal precision and contextual accuracy regarding compliance topics, the final text has undergone full human editorial review and rigorous manual verification by the Zooly compliance team before publication.