European Union member states reached this week a last‑minute agreement to push forward the directive on work in digital platforms. The framework aims to curb the use of false self‑employment within the gig economy. Initially, the effort was led by Spain’s second deputy prime minister, Yolanda Díaz, but that push stalled due to opposition from France and Germany. Under the Belgian presidency and just months before the European Parliament’s term ends, the states scaled back some details of the rule and unlocked its approval.
The new European ‘rider law,’ as its promoters call it, seeks to regulate the working conditions of platform workers. That includes everyone who delivers, assembles furniture, or cleans homes, among others, who offer services through an app. It is estimated to affect around 28 million people across the EU, according to figures handled by the European Commission.
The rule strengthens the right to demand an employment contract for these workers, though the scope will not be equally ambitious in every member state. It will take some time to come into force, and in Spain it will modify parts of the existing legislation. Here are the main keys of the measure.
1. What the directive covers and what it aims to achieve
“The objective of this directive is to improve working conditions and protect personal data in the realm of platform work.” This is the stated intention agreed by EU member states in the opening article of the so‑called ‘rider law.’
To that end, the directive establishes a presumption of employment for people offering services through digital platforms. In practical terms, platform workers should be considered employees by default, with platforms responsible for hiring, paying salaries, funding social security, and ensuring coverage for potential accidents, among other obligations.
If a platform instead claims that a worker fits the definition of an independent contractor, it must justify this before the national labor authority. And each country will set the concrete characteristics of that employment presumption.
The key change from the original Spanish proposal was to replace a fixed set of five universal characteristics with a system where each state creates or adapts its own rules to decide whether a platform worker is an employee or not.
2. How a platform is defined under the law
Distinguishing a regular business from a digital platform is central, since the rule obliges the latter but not the former. The law identifies three criteria for work performed on a platform. First, all or part of the work must be delivered remotely via digital means, typically through a mobile phone or computer.
Second, the work is on‑demand. The worker responds to a client’s request; they do not seek work or schedule it on their own. And third, the work must be compensated and decision‑making processes should be at least partially automated.
The most visible example is food‑delivery apps. A customer places an order in an app, the delivery person receives the order through the same app, and is assigned by an automated algorithm. They are paid for picking up and delivering the order.
3. Which workers and companies are affected?
According to European Commission estimates, around 28 million people provide services through digital platforms. The street faces prominently show food couriers, yet the definition also covers workers who offer their services via apps that connect handymen with people needing home repairs. For instance, TaskRabbit, in which Ikea invested, operates on this model. There are also cleaning apps that connect cleaners with clients for a commission, and even a defunct platform like Cuideo followed this pattern.
But it is not limited to on‑site services. Remote platforms like Fiverr, Upwork, or Amazon Mechanical Turk also play a major role, offering tasks that can be completed from home for someone elsewhere in the world. Translations or small tasks to train artificial intelligence fall into this category. The directive also affects these remote platforms, although their international and remote nature complicates enforcement.
Platforms must disclose how many workers participate in delivering their services. For example, Glovo or Uber would need to report to national authorities how many riders they employ and under what conditions, such as average weekly hours, service frequency, and earnings.
4. What is said about algorithms?
The directive calls for transparency in algorithms—platforms must explain to workers, whether employed or independent, how automated decision‑making affects their daily work.
Platforms with 250 or more employees in a country must fund the hiring of an advisor to help staff understand the algorithmic audit and to raise questions or suggest changes as needed.
5. How Spain adapts the law and when it starts
The directive will land in Spain as an extension of the existing rider law. It will add two main changes. First, the presumption of labor status will extend to all platform workers, whereas today it only covers delivery platforms. Jurisprudence has already shown that apps for cleaners, for example, can employ false independents as well.
Second, it will expand transparency obligations around algorithms, as the current Spanish law is quite generic. For instance, the requirement to conduct a bi‑annual audit does not exist in the current framework.
Sources inside the digital platform world vary. Some say the final version leaves room for states that prefer not to strictly enforce the rules. Others, like Anna Ginès, a professor at Esade specializing in digital platforms, argue that the obligation to maintain the employment presumption is explicit and that the lack of concrete details may actually aid workers by giving countries space to adapt their labor frameworks to the goal.