The Helpling judgment of the Dutch Supreme Court (ECLI:NL:HR:2025:543) confirms that work performed via an app or platform can qualify as temporary agency work. Even where services are provided to private individuals, the digital platform – in this case Helpling – can legally be considered the temporary work agency.

This ruling has far-reaching implications for organisations relying on flexible labour through digital intermediation, from platform companies to staffing agencies, HR professionals and end-users.

Platform Work via App: Who Is the Employer, Who Is the Hirer?

The case concerned a domestic cleaner who performed household tasks via the Helpling platform. Over a period of 24.5 weeks, she worked an average of 6.7 hours per week. She could manage her availability, create a profile, set her own hourly rate, and accept bookings through the app. Helpling facilitated the matching, drafted the general terms and conditions, and arranged payment through a third-party payment provider.

On 4 September 2017, the cleaner called in sick and asked Helpling whether she was entitled to continued payment of wages. Helpling responded that she was not considered an employee and that the Dutch “Regeling Dienstverlening aan Huis” (Private Domestic Services Scheme) applied. As such, she had no right to continued wage payment.

Following this, the cleaner contacted trade union FNV, which took the position that an employment relationship did in fact exist between the cleaner and Helpling – either a standard employment contract or a temporary agency contract under Article 7:690 of the Dutch Civil Code. According to FNV, Helpling acted as an employer by determining the conditions of work, controlling access to assignments, charging commission, and indirectly supervising the work relationship.

Helpling argued that it was merely a digital matching platform and that, if any employment contract existed, it was between the cleaner and the private household receiving the services.

The central legal question thus became: who was the true employer in this platform-based working relationship – the household or the platform?

So: will the real employer please stand up?

What Did the Lower Courts and the Advocate General Say?

The subdistrict court held that no employment contract existed between the cleaner and Helpling. It considered Helpling a neutral intermediary without employer authority. Since the household issued instructions, paid for the work, and received the services, the court concluded that the employment relationship was between the cleaner and the household.

The Court of Appeal in Amsterdam disagreed. It ruled that the relationship between Helpling and the cleaner constituted a temporary agency contract. In this construction, households were deemed to be hirers. Helpling, in the court’s view, acted as the formal employer, regulating access to work, setting terms of engagement, and arranging payment. This level of involvement constituted sufficient formal authority to qualify as a temporary employment agency under Article 7:690 DCC.

Advocate General De Bock reached yet another conclusion. She argued that private individuals cannot qualify as hirers, as they do not operate a business. As a result, there could be no valid temporary agency relationship. Instead, she found that Helpling should be considered a regular employer, applying a modern interpretation of the authority criterion: even without direct instructions, an employment relationship may exist if the platform shapes the terms and structure of the work via algorithms, conditions or behavioural rules.

Supreme Court Decision: Helpling Is a Temporary Employment Agency

The Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeal’s decision. According to the Court, a private household can qualify as a hirer even if it does not run a business. What matters is whether the work is performed under the direction and supervision of the household, and whether the worker is made available by the platform in the context of the platform’s business activities.

The Court found that Helpling controlled access to assignments, dictated the terms under which tasks were performed, and arranged payment. This level of organisational involvement was sufficient to qualify Helpling as the formal employer. The fact that the household supervised the actual work was not decisive; the very essence of a temporary agency relationship is that the day-to-day supervision lies with the hirer, while the formal employer retains overall control.

Legal Implications for Freelancers, Agencies and Platforms

This judgment clarifies that digital platforms cannot automatically exempt themselves from labour law obligations. Even if the worker is engaged as a freelancer or self-employed contractor, requalification as an employee or temporary agency worker remains a real risk.

Key risks include:
• Requalification from self-employment to employment or agency work
• Applicability of collective labour agreements and sick pay obligations
• Prohibition on charging workers for access to assignments (Article 9 WAADI)
• Liability for taxes, holiday pay, and transition compensation

European Context: Presumption of Employment in Platform Work

This judgment aligns with the draft EU Directive on Platform Work, which introduces a rebuttable presumption of employment when at least two of five indicators are met. These include algorithmic supervision, restricted price-setting freedom, and control over working time or task allocation.

Platforms will increasingly bear the burden of proof in demonstrating that no employment relationship exists.

Guidance for Employers, Platforms and HR Professionals

Employers, staffing agencies and platforms should critically assess their use of freelance labour through apps or digital systems. The key legal questions are who exercises authority, who controls how and when work is done, and who defines the contractual terms.

The actual working relationship takes precedence over how the contract is labelled.

Have Your Workforce Model Legally Reviewed

ACG International advises organisations on structuring work relationships within digital platforms, apps and other forms of mediated labour. We assist with:

• Risk analysis of employment versus self-employment classification
• Structuring of temporary agency frameworks
• Compliance with WAADI and applicable collective labour agreements

Questions about platform work, staffing, or misclassification? Get in touch with our team for expert legal advice.