Illegal contract clauses put financial burden on Dutch freelancers
Freelancers in the Netherlands are increasingly facing contract clauses that shift financial risks from employers to them, even though many of these provisions are legally invalid. These clauses reportedly attempt to make freelancers responsible for tax reassessments and fines imposed on employers if authorities classify them as misclassified employees, NOS reports.
Legal experts warn that such clauses often violate Dutch law, yet some freelancers feel pressured to accept them. Since the Dutch tax authority began enforcing regulations against false self-employment this year, employers have been looking for ways to protect themselves from potential costs.
Some freelancers have found contract clauses requiring them to pay for employer tax reassessments and penalties, which could lead to unexpected expenses of thousands of euros. The issue has grown so widespread that ZZP Nederland, an advocacy group for self-employed workers, now receives daily inquiries about these contract terms—whereas it previously received none. The problem is reportedly particularly common in the business services and IT sectors.
Employment law expert Bastiaan van Rossum, who regularly reviews contracts between freelancers and employers, has seen these clauses more frequently. However, their legal standing is weak. “Provisions that violate the law simply don’t apply, even if the freelancer has signed,” Van Rossum told NOS.
While Dutch law allows employers to pass certain costs to freelancers, there are strict limits. Employers can require freelancers to cover income tax and national insurance contributions, but freelancers can deduct these costs from their own tax obligations. However, employee insurance premiums and income-dependent healthcare contributions cannot legally be transferred to freelancers and must be paid by the employer.
Tax reassessments reportedly present a mixed case. Since these assessments contain both permitted and non-permitted charges, only some costs can be shifted to freelancers. Fines issued by tax authorities are a gray area—while the law does not explicitly forbid passing them to freelancers, courts may rule that doing so is unreasonable. The Dutch tax authority has stated that it will not issue fines for misclassification this year.
An IT freelancer, identified as R., discovered one of these risk-shifting clauses in his contract but was unable to persuade his client to revise it. “The job met all self-employment requirements, so why was this clause there?” he questioned, according to NOS. When he asked for it to be reworded, his client refused. “It felt unfair. They are a much bigger company, yet I take all the risk,” he said. After consulting a legal expert, who confirmed the clause was unenforceable, he signed the contract. “I only signed because I knew it wouldn’t hold up in court. But I would have preferred a proper resolution.”
Another freelancer, Z., refused to sign a contract containing an unlawful clause and faced harsher consequences. The intermediary company that arranged her municipal work not only refused to amend the contract but also threatened to withhold her payment. “Then they immediately terminated our contract. It was exhausting and frustrating,” she said.
Van Rossum believes the only real way to prevent false self-employment is to change the actual working relationship instead of inserting these legal disclaimers. “That is 100 percent more effective than these contract loopholes,” he said. He added that many employers act out of fear and misinformation, which leads to harmful practices.
These clauses have serious consequences for freelancers. “They scare off self-employed workers, which ultimately has the opposite effect of what companies want,” Van Rossum told NOS. Freelance advocacy group VZN’s president, Cristel van de Ven, agrees. “Some freelancers refuse to sign these contracts and end up losing job opportunities because of it.”
