AI Contracts and Smart Contracts under Dutch law

Published on 14 March 2026 · Last updated 11 November 2026

Under Dutch law, a contract for an AI system is an ordinary contract, usually a contract for services, a licence or a sale, and the general rules of the Dutch Civil Code apply. Since 2024 the EU AI Act adds duties that the contract must allocate. A smart contract can record or perform an agreement, but it does not replace Dutch contract law. Have AI and smart contracts drafted or reviewed before you sign.

This page is for foreign companies that buy, sell, license or build AI systems with Dutch partners, or that use smart contracts in trade with the Netherlands. You will read how Dutch law qualifies these contracts, which AI Act dates and roles matter, which clauses to include, who is liable when things go wrong, and when a smart contract binds. For the regulation itself, see our page on the EU AI Act.

What is an AI contract under Dutch law?

There is no special contract type for AI in the Dutch Civil Code. A contract to develop or operate an AI system is usually a contract for services (overeenkomst van opdracht, Article 7:400 Dutch Civil Code); access to software is mostly a licence; delivery of a device with built-in AI can be a sale (Article 7:1).

The qualification matters because each contract type brings its own default rules. In a sale, the goods must conform to the contract and the buyer must complain in time (Articles 7:17 and 7:23 Dutch Civil Code). In a contract for services, the provider must act as a careful service provider (Article 7:401). Write down what the AI system must do, and which party bears which risk, rather than relying on these defaults. See also our page on IT contracts under Dutch law.

Which AI Act dates and roles affect your contract?

The AI Act entered into force on 1 August 2024 and applies in phases. After the amendment of July 2026, the main rules apply from 2 August 2026, and the requirements for high-risk AI systems from 2 December 2027 or 2 August 2028, depending on the category (Article 113 AI Act, as amended by Regulation (EU) 2026/1744).

What applies	From	Source
Entry into force	1 August 2024	Article 113
General provisions, AI literacy (Article 4) and prohibited practices (Article 5)	2 February 2025	Article 113(a)
Rules for general-purpose AI models, governance and penalties	2 August 2025	Article 113(b)
General application, including transparency duties (Article 50)	2 August 2026	Article 113
High-risk requirements for Annex III systems (for example recruitment and creditworthiness)	2 December 2027	Article 113(c)(i)
High-risk requirements for AI in products under Annex I legislation	2 August 2028	Article 113(c)(ii)

The roles decide who carries which duty. The provider develops an AI system, or has it developed, and places it on the market under its own name; the deployer uses it under its own authority (Article 3, points 3 and 4). For high-risk systems, the provider and a third party that supplies an AI system, model, tool or component used in it must specify by written agreement the information, technical access and other assistance the provider needs to comply (Article 25(4) AI Act). The AI Office may recommend voluntary model terms for such contracts.

Which clauses belong in an AI contract?

At least a functional description, rules on data, a compliance allocation under the AI Act, acceptance criteria and a liability regime. The table lists the clauses we see most often in disputes and what to settle in each.

Clause	What to settle
Description and intended purpose	What the system must do, for which use, with which performance levels; the intended purpose also drives the AI Act risk category
Data	Which data the supplier may use, for training or not, where it is stored, and what happens on termination
AI Act allocation	Who is provider and who is deployer; who prepares documentation, logs and instructions for use; cooperation duties (Article 25(4))
Human oversight and change control	Who may retrain or change the model, and when a change requires new testing or approval
Acceptance	Test criteria, test period and the consequence of a failed test
Liability and indemnities	A cap, excluded types of loss, and which party bears fines or third-party claims
Exit	Transfer of data and documentation, transition support, and how long the supplier keeps records

Liability caps are generally valid between businesses, but a court can set a clause aside if relying on it would be unacceptable by standards of reasonableness and fairness (Article 6:248(2) Dutch Civil Code). AI Act fines are imposed on the party that breaches its own duties, so a contractual indemnity only moves the financial burden between the parties. More on limitation clauses: limitation of liability under Dutch law.

Are you about to sign an AI development or licence agreement with a Dutch party? Ask a Dutch contract lawyer to review the allocation of AI Act duties before the high-risk dates apply to your system.

Who is liable when an AI system causes damage?

Between the contract parties, the supplier is liable for damages if it fails to perform and the failure is attributable to it (Article 6:74 Dutch Civil Code). Towards third parties, the Dutch product liability rules apply to a producer of a defective product (Article 6:185).

The new Product Liability Directive expressly includes software in the definition of “product” and applies to products placed on the market or put into service after 9 December 2026 (Articles 2(1), 4(1) and 22 Directive (EU) 2024/2853). Check the status of the Dutch implementation before relying on the new rules. For the current regime, see product liability in the Netherlands.

Are smart contracts legally binding under Dutch law?

A smart contract is computer code that performs agreed steps automatically, for example releasing a payment when a delivery is confirmed. It binds as a contract if there was an offer and an acceptance (Article 6:217(1) Dutch Civil Code); Dutch law requires no particular form unless the law says otherwise (Article 3:37(1)).

The code is therefore usually the performance of an agreement, not the whole agreement. If the code does something the parties did not intend, the Dutch rules on interpretation, mistake (Article 6:228) and undue payment (Article 6:203) still apply. Where a written signature is required, an electronic signature has the same effect as a handwritten one if the method is sufficiently reliable (Article 3:15a Dutch Civil Code).

What goes wrong with smart contracts in practice?

Most disputes arise because the code performs automatically while the facts are disputed. A payment released on a faulty data feed cannot simply be reversed on the blockchain, but it can be reclaimed under Dutch law.

The data source (oracle) reports a delivery or price that is wrong, and the code acts on it.
The parties never agreed in writing what happens if the code and the written terms differ.
The counterparty is only known by a wallet address, which makes enforcement and service of documents harder.
Mandatory rules, such as consumer protection, apply regardless of what the code does.

Our advice is to keep a short written framework agreement next to the code. It should state which document prevails, how a disputed automatic step is reversed, which law applies and which court decides. See also our page on choosing Dutch law in international contracts.

Practical example: an AI quality-control module for a Dutch manufacturer

Suppose a German software company licenses an AI vision module to a Dutch machine builder, which builds it into a packaging machine sold under its own name. The module detects faulty seals and stops the line.

Since the July 2026 amendment, an AI system used solely for quality control is not a safety component, unless its failure or malfunctioning would endanger health and safety (Article 6(1a) and (1b) AI Act). Because the module only checks seal quality, it is not a high-risk system on that ground; if it also protected operators, that assessment would change. The machine builder still needs reliable documentation and support from the software company. The parties agree in the licence which documents and logs the supplier delivers, how model changes are tested, and a liability cap with a separate cap for regulatory costs. A dispute over a missed defect is then assessed against the agreed performance levels, not against general expectations.

When should you involve a Dutch lawyer?

Before signing an AI development, licence or supply contract, when your system may be high-risk, and as soon as automatic performance of a smart contract leads to a disputed payment or delivery.

MAAK Advocaten in Amsterdam advises foreign and Dutch businesses on technology and commercial contracts under Dutch law. We draft and review AI and software agreements, allocate AI Act duties, and litigate before the Dutch courts in first instance and on appeal. See also protecting software under Dutch law.

Frequently asked questions about AI contracts and smart contracts under Dutch law

Is there a specific Dutch law for AI contracts?

No. AI contracts are governed by the general rules of the Dutch Civil Code, such as the rules on services (Article 7:400) or sale (Article 7:1). The EU AI Act adds regulatory duties that the parties should allocate in the contract.

When do the high-risk requirements of the AI Act apply?

After the July 2026 amendment by Regulation (EU) 2026/1744: from 2 December 2027 for systems listed in Annex III, and from 2 August 2028 for AI in products covered by Annex I legislation (Article 113 AI Act).

Must an AI contract be in writing?

Dutch contract law requires no particular form. For high-risk AI systems, however, the provider and a supplier of components or tools must specify the necessary information and assistance by written agreement (Article 25(4) AI Act).

Is a smart contract a valid contract under Dutch law?

It can be. A contract is formed by offer and acceptance (Article 6:217 Dutch Civil Code), in any form. The code usually performs the agreement; disputes about what was agreed are still decided under Dutch contract law.

Can a payment made by a smart contract be reclaimed?

Yes, if there was no legal basis for it, for example because the code acted on wrong data. The payer can claim repayment of an undue payment (Article 6:203 Dutch Civil Code), even if the blockchain transaction itself cannot be reversed.