The Uber Ruling: What It Means for Fractional Legal Counsels

The Uber Ruling: What It Means for Fractional Legal Counsels

The Amsterdam Court of Appeal just handed down a significant decision that has important implications for how we think about independent contractor relationships, including fractional legal counsels.

The Case

The FNV trade union sued Uber, arguing that all Uber drivers should be classified as employees entitled to CAO benefits. The Court of Appeal has now ruled that Uber drivers work as independent contractors, not employees. (Gerechtshof Amsterdam, 27 January 2026, ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2026:163)

This isn’t just another employment law case. It’s a fundamental reframing of how courts assess the nature of modern work arrangements.

The Legal Framework

This case builds on the Dutch Supreme Court’s 2021 Deliveroo ruling, which established nine key factors for determining whether someone is an employee or independent contractor. Those nine factors have become the standard framework for evaluating work relationships in the Netherlands, and this Uber ruling shows how courts are applying them in practice.

The interesting thing about these factors is that they’re not a checklist where you need to tick all nine boxes. It’s a balancing test. Some factors carry more weight than others, and the overall picture matters more than any single element.

What the Court Found

Even though many Uber drivers work substantial hours and depend significantly on Uber for income—two things that traditionally suggest employment—the Court ruled they are NOT employees because of their strong degree of entrepreneurship.

Here’s what tipped the balance:

Substantial investments. Drivers purchase or lease their own vehicles, often making strategic choices based on their business model. A driver choosing between a Tesla for premium rides versus a compact car for volume is making a business decision, not following employer instructions.

Freedom to choose. Complete control over when, where, and how much to work. You want to work Tuesday mornings and Saturday nights? Fine. You want to take three weeks off without asking permission? Also fine. This isn’t flexibility within employment—it’s genuine autonomy.

Strategic autonomy. Freedom to accept or decline rides based on their own business strategy. If you’re building a premium service and don’t want to accept short trips, that’s your call. An employee can’t cherry-pick assignments like that.

Multiple income streams. Many drivers work for multiple platforms simultaneously. You can drive for Uber in the morning and Bolt in the afternoon. Try doing that as an employee.

Personal risk. Drivers bear all costs, liability, and risk of disability or accidents. If you crash your car, that’s on you. If you get sick, there’s no paid leave. If business is slow, you don’t get paid. That’s entrepreneurial risk, not employment.

Traditionally self-employed profession. Taxi driving has historically been an independent contractor profession. Courts don’t ignore industry norms and historical context when making these determinations.

The Court was clear that the amount of hours worked, or even economic dependency on Uber, doesn’t automatically create an employment relationship when genuine entrepreneurship is present. You can work 40 hours a week for Uber and still be an independent contractor if the other factors point that way.

Why This Matters for Fractional Legal Counsels

This ruling provides strong support for the independent contractor status of interim legal professionals. The parallels are obvious once you look at them:

Significant investments. Fractional counsels invest in their legal education, continuing education, technology platforms, professional liability insurance, and office infrastructure. These aren’t small expenses. A good legal research subscription alone can run thousands of euros per year.

Freedom and flexibility. They choose which clients to work with, when to work, and how to structure their practice. If a client wants you to be available 9-to-5 every day and attend all their meetings, you can say no. Or you can say yes and charge accordingly. That’s your choice.

Strategic business decisions. They make independent decisions about their positioning, pricing, practice areas, and client mix. You decide whether you want to be the compliance expert, the M&A specialist, or the generalist problem solver. You set your rates. You choose your clients.

Multiple client relationships. They usually serve multiple clients simultaneously. This is a big one. Employment is generally exclusive (or at least primary). Independent contracting is not.

Personal liability and risk. They carry their own malpractice insurance and bear the consequences of their professional decisions. If you give bad advice, you’re on the hook. If business dries up, you don’t get severance. If you’re sick, nobody pays you.

Traditionally self-employed profession. Legal practice has always included a strong tradition of independent practitioners and solo firms. Lawyers have been running their own practices for centuries.

Amount of hours and economic dependency. Even substantial hours worked for a single client, or economic dependency on that client, doesn’t automatically create an employment relationship when genuine entrepreneurship is present. You might do 30 hours a week for one client because that’s what makes sense for your business this quarter. Doesn’t make you an employee.

My Take

This ruling validates what many of us in the fractional economy already know: there’s a meaningful difference between genuine entrepreneurship and disguised employment.

The key word is “genuine.” The Court isn’t saying that every contractor arrangement is legitimate. Platform companies can’t just slap an independent contractor label on what’s really employment and hope it sticks. But when you have real entrepreneurial freedom, real investment, real risk, and real control over how you run your business, that’s not disguised employment. That’s actual independent contracting.

The future of work includes room for both employees AND true independent professionals. This ruling supports properly structured independent contractor relationships without undermining employee protections. You can have both. They serve different purposes, they suit different people, and they both have a place in a modern economy.

For fractional legal counsels and other independent professionals, this ruling provides important legal validation for how we structure our relationships with clients. As long as we maintain genuine entrepreneurial independence—and that means more than just signing a contract that says “independent contractor”—the law recognizes that we’re running businesses, not holding jobs.