Why the Temper cassation case at the Dutch Supreme Court matters for digital work platforms

In its judgment of 16 June 2026, the Amsterdam Court of Appeal ruled that the relationship between Temper and the platform workers who performed jobs through its application qualified as a temporary agency employment relationship (uitzendovereenkomst) under Article 7:690 of the Dutch Civil Code. 

In other words, the Court of Appeal legally classified the platform workers as temporary agency workers rather than independent entrepreneurs (freelancers). 

The Court of Appeal looked past the formal digital framework and examined the operational reality of the relationship. The court based its reclassification on three core criteria: 

• Contractual and Remuneration Control: Temper was found to be closely involved in shaping the tripartite relationship between the platform, the worker, and the client, directly influencing the contractual framework, remuneration, and payment processes. 

• Core Business Integration: The court considered that the shifts performed were generally embedded within the clients’ normal business activities and executed under the clients’ direct supervision and direction. 

• Absence of Entrepreneurial Risk: The court further determined that the platform workers carried limited commercial and entrepreneurial risk, pointing away from genuine self-employment. 

By applying the principles established in the landmark Deliveroo judgment, the Court of Appeal concluded that these collective circumstances supported a temporary agency work classification. This ruling effectively overturned the Amsterdam District Court’s 2024 judgment, which had previously found that Temper did not operate as a temporary employment agency. This fundamental contradiction forms the core catalyst for the subsequent appeal to the Supreme Court.

Temper fundamentally disagrees with the Court of Appeal's ruling and has formally initiated cassation proceedings. In the Dutch legal system, a cassation review by the Supreme Court (Hoge Raad) does not involve a new assessment of the facts. Instead, the Supreme Court will strictly examine two elements: 

1. Whether the Court of Appeal correctly interpreted and applied Dutch employment law. 

2. Whether the court's reasoning is legally sound and sufficient to support its conclusion. 

Temper has emphasized that the Court of Appeal's judgment is not final or enforceable while these proceedings are pending. Consequently, Temper's current business operations will continue unchanged in the interim. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court's final ruling represents a critical milestone in defining how Dutch employment law applies to digital work platforms and platform labor. 

For Zooly, the Temper case highlights the critical legal distinction between a digital work platform and a pure SaaS marketplace. 

Zooly’s model is structurally designed as a marketplace where the Client and Vendor directly enter into their own independent Service Agreement. Zooly solely provides the underlying SaaS infrastructure to power these marketplace operations. 

The relevance of the Temper case for Zooly lies in the principle of substance over form: legal classification ultimately depends on the actual role a platform performs, rather than the digital label attached to it. For Zooly, the key priority is to strictly preserve the boundaries of facilitating an independent Client-Vendor relationship, completely avoiding the organization, direction, or scheduling of the labor itself. 

• The Temper case remains legally pending: The Court of Appeal's reclassification is currently being challenged before the Supreme Court, meaning no definitive sector-wide precedent is set yet. 

• Substance overrides formal labels: Dutch courts will always prioritize how the working relationship functions in practice over the wording of a platform's Terms of Service. 

• Platform involvement triggers reclassification risks: A digital platform faces a high risk of being qualified as an employer or agency when its role goes beyond matchmaking and interferes with contract terms, pricing, or work execution. 

• Marketplace boundaries must be maintained: For platforms utilizing SaaS infrastructures like Zooly, maintaining a strictly facilitative, hands-off role is the primary defense against employment claims. 

• Anticipating future Dutch employment law boundaries: The upcoming Supreme Court ruling will provide crucial guidance on where Dutch law draws the line between facilitating independent B2B services and organizing labor through digital intermediaries. 

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.

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.