Could the Zelfstandigenwet cost 30% of freelancers their assignments?
In a Knab survey of 1,068 freelancers, 53% said they would vote against the proposed Dutch Self-Employed Persons Act (Zelfstandigenwet). Many fear that clients will accept only freelancers who qualify for its safe harbour. That may be an attractive policy for clients seeking certainty about misclassification risk, even though failing a safe harbour test would not automatically make someone an employee.
The proposed safe harbour is intended to give freelancers and clients clearer grounds for working together. But a Knab survey raises a different question: could clients come to regard it as the only acceptable way to engage a freelancer? Respondents worry that an assignment could be refused as soon as one criterion is missed, without examining whether independent work remains possible under the existing rules.
Why might clients insist on the safe harbour?
Clients face financial and legal consequences if work they treat as freelance is later found to be employment. The proposed safe harbour offers a more defined route to certainty: where both tests are met and the parties work accordingly, the relationship would lack the authority required for an employment contract.
That certainty could make the safe harbour attractive as a hiring policy. A client managing many freelance assignments may prefer a clear set of criteria over assessing every relationship under the broader existing framework. This is a possible business response to misclassification risk, rather than a requirement imposed by the proposal.
Why are freelancers concerned?
Of the 1,068 freelancers in Knab’s survey, 53% said they would vote against the proposal, 19% would support it and 28% were undecided. The proposed requirement for at least three clients or customers across the current and previous calendar years was a particular concern. Thirty per cent of respondents reported fewer than three over that period; among ICT respondents, the figure was 69%.
Consider a specialist working on one substantial project for more than a year. Their client history might prevent them from qualifying for the proposed safe harbour when seeking the next assignment. If a prospective client accepts only freelancers who qualify, that specialist could lose the opportunity before the actual working relationship is assessed.
Knab’s survey was voluntary and unweighted. Its results describe the respondents’ views and circumstances; they are not representative of all Dutch freelancers.
Does missing the safe harbour rule out independent work?
No. The government’s consultation states that failing one or both proposed tests would not automatically establish an employment contract. The relationship would instead be assessed under the existing classification rules, which could still support self-employment. The proposal remains open for consultation until 29 October 2026 and is not yet law.
This creates the tension at the centre of the survey: the law may leave two routes available, while a risk-conscious client may be willing to use only one.
What should clients take from the survey?
Clients should distinguish a decision about their tolerance for risk from a conclusion about a freelancer’s legal status. A freelancer outside the proposed safe harbour may require a fuller assessment of how the assignment will work. Treating them automatically as an employee would go further than the proposal says.
For Zooly, keeping the freelancer’s business information alongside the terms and operation of each assignment can support that fuller assessment. It gives clients a basis for explaining their decision, including when the proposed safe harbour is unavailable.
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.
More News
View all news →An intermediary deducted 3.5% from a freelancer’s pay for arranging an assignment. The Arnhem-Leeuwarden Court of Appeal held that the fee breached Dutch law. The case shows why intermediaries and marketplace operators need to look at what the fee buys and how the assignment works in practice.
Preparing for 2027 starts with understanding how your freelance arrangements work today. This guide helps clients identify what to check, which questions need a closer look and what to resolve before approving or renewing an assignment. The budget is approved, the freelancer is available and last year’s agreement is ready to reuse. Before signing, ask one more question: does the proposed arrangement still make sense as freelance work? Start by comparing the agreement with how the work will actually be done. Have the duties changed? Who will direct the work? If an intermediary is involved, what will it be responsible for? The checks below help you spot what needs a closer look before you sign.
An FMS operator combines mediation between clients and freelancers with the administration of assignments through a Freelance Management System. In this model, the client and freelancer contract directly for the work. The operator supports their engagement without becoming the contractor responsible for delivering the assignment. A client needs an independent engineer. A business introduces a suitable professional, helps collect the documents and supports the agreement and invoicing. The engineer delivers the services directly to the client. The business remains involved throughout the assignment, but it has not employed the engineer or undertaken to deliver the engineering work itself. How should that role be described? FMS operator provides a useful name. In this article, it means a business that uses a Freelance Management System to connect clients and freelancers and administer their direct engagements. It builds on the mediation role—bemiddeling in Dutch—which Zooly has also described as the broker role. The term describes a business model. It is not a new statutory status.
“Close the gap before the climb.” Imagine hearing that in your earpiece with a teammate on your wheel. The team director has spotted a move up the road, and you have seconds to respond. The instruction tells you what the team needs in that moment. To understand the rider’s working relationship, it helps to look at what happens after the finish. The men’s WorldTour rules allow teams to engage self-employed riders where the applicable law permits it, and they set conditions for pay and insurance. So who sets the rider’s training schedule between races? Can the rider negotiate an extra commitment? Who bears the cost if an injury keeps them off the bike? Together, those details help show how much independence the rider has in practice and who carries the financial risk. UCI Road Regulations, Article 2.15.115 bis