Gig worker rights: the global revolution transforming platform work

Updated: December 2025

The world is changing for gig workers

For years, companies like Uber, Lyft, DoorDash, and Deliveroo built billion-dollar empires on a simple premise: the people who do the work aren't really employees. They're "independent contractors" who happen to use an app. They set their own schedules, use their own vehicles, and bear all the risks of the business—from gas prices to car repairs to the lack of health insurance, sick pay, or unemployment benefits.

This classification saved platforms billions of dollars. It shifted costs that every other employer bears—payroll taxes, workers' compensation insurance, benefits—onto the workers themselves. And for a long time, governments around the world let it happen.

That era is ending. In 2024 and 2025, a wave of legislation swept across the globe, fundamentally reshaping the relationship between platforms and the people who power them. The European Union adopted the Platform Work Directive, presuming that gig workers are employees unless platforms can prove otherwise. Singapore became the first Asian country to mandate employer contributions for platform workers. Malaysia followed with comprehensive protections for 1.2 million gig workers. Courts in the United Kingdom, Spain, and the Netherlands ruled that delivery riders and drivers are entitled to employment rights.

Even in the United States, where the gig economy model was invented and where companies have spent hundreds of millions of dollars defending it, the ground is shifting. New York established the highest minimum wage in the country for app-based drivers. Washington State enacted paid sick leave for gig workers. Class action settlements have returned billions of dollars to workers cheated by platform practices.

The gig economy isn't going away—but the exploitation that characterized its early years is finally facing accountability. This guide explains what's happening around the world, what rights you have depending on where you work, and how to protect yourself in this rapidly changing landscape.

The scale of the gig economy

Understanding the stakes requires understanding the numbers.

| Metric | Value | |--------|-------| | Platform workers in EU (2024) | 28 million | | Projected EU platform workers (2025) | 43 million | | Gig workers in United States | 59 million (36% of workforce) | | Malaysian gig workers covered by new law | 1.2 million | | Singapore platform workers | 73,000+ covered | | Global gig economy market size (2024) | $556 billion |

The growth trajectory is remarkable. The European Commission projects platform work will grow by 54 percent between 2024 and 2025 alone. In the United States, surveys consistently find that between one-quarter and one-third of workers participate in the gig economy in some capacity—whether as their primary income source or as supplemental work.

Yet this massive workforce has historically operated in a legal gray zone. Platform companies designed their business models specifically to avoid the obligations that come with employing people. Workers bore the costs of vehicles, fuel, phones, and insurance while platforms controlled the most important aspects of the work: setting prices, matching workers with customers, rating performance, and terminating access through "deactivation."

The result was a transfer of wealth from workers to shareholders. Studies consistently found that after accounting for expenses, vehicle depreciation, and the lack of benefits, many gig workers earned below minimum wage. A widely cited study by the National Employment Law Project found that Uber and Lyft drivers in California earned an effective wage of just $5.64 per hour after expenses—far below the state's minimum wage of $15.50 at the time.

The regulatory revolution of 2024-2025 represents governments finally recognizing that this model is unsustainable—and that platform workers deserve the same basic protections afforded to every other worker in the economy.

The European Union: rewriting the rules

The Platform Work Directive

On October 14, 2024, the European Union formally adopted the Platform Work Directive—the most comprehensive gig worker protection legislation in the world. The directive took effect on December 1, 2024, and EU member states have until December 2, 2026 to implement it into national law.

The directive's centerpiece is the presumption of employment. Unlike the traditional model where workers must prove they should be classified as employees, the directive flips the burden of proof. Platform workers are presumed to be employees entitled to full labor rights unless the platform can demonstrate that the relationship genuinely constitutes independent contracting.

This reversal is profound. In the United States, workers who believe they've been misclassified must hire lawyers, file lawsuits, and prove their case through expensive litigation—often against companies with unlimited legal resources. Under the EU directive, the burden falls on platforms to justify their classification choices. If they can't, workers automatically receive the protections of employment law.

The directive establishes specific criteria that indicate an employment relationship. These include supervision of work performance through algorithmic means, determination or limitation of remuneration, restriction of the worker's ability to choose working hours or decline tasks, restrictions on building a client base or working for competitors, and requiring workers to wear uniforms or follow dress codes. When two or more of these criteria are met, the employment presumption applies.

Algorithmic transparency and human oversight

Beyond classification, the directive addresses something platform workers have long complained about: the black box of algorithmic management. Platform algorithms make life-altering decisions—assigning lucrative orders to some workers and not others, adjusting pay based on opaque "surge" calculations, and terminating workers' access with little explanation and no appeal.

Under the directive, platforms must provide meaningful transparency about how their algorithms work. Workers have the right to know how automated systems monitor, supervise, and evaluate their performance. They must be informed about how algorithms affect working conditions, including pay, assignment of tasks, and account status.

Critically, the directive requires human oversight of automated decisions. No worker can be terminated, suspended, or significantly penalized based solely on algorithmic decision-making. A human must review and approve significant adverse actions, and workers must have the ability to contest and obtain review of these decisions.

The directive also prohibits certain algorithmic practices outright. Platforms cannot process biometric data for emotional or psychological profiling. They cannot process data about workers' private conversations or predict union activity or collective action. These provisions recognize that algorithmic management can easily become algorithmic surveillance and control.

Impact on 28 million workers

The directive's scope is enormous. The European Commission identified over 500 digital labor platforms operating in the EU, collectively employing 28 million platform workers. Of these, an estimated 5.5 million are believed to be misclassified—currently treated as independent contractors when they should be recognized as employees.

For these workers, proper classification means access to minimum wage protections, paid annual leave, sick pay, parental leave, unemployment insurance, workplace health and safety protections, protection against unfair dismissal, and collective bargaining rights. The economic value of these protections runs into billions of euros annually—money that has historically flowed to platform shareholders instead of the workers who generate it.

Member states are now working to transpose the directive into national law. Some countries, including Spain and the Netherlands, had already implemented similar protections and will need only minor adjustments. Others, particularly in Eastern Europe where platform work has grown rapidly, face more substantial implementation challenges. The December 2026 deadline gives countries time to develop enforcement mechanisms and train labor inspectors.

United Kingdom: Uber loses, workers win

The Supreme Court decision

While not an EU member after Brexit, the United Kingdom has been a battleground for gig worker rights—and workers have largely prevailed. The watershed moment came in February 2021, when the UK Supreme Court unanimously ruled that Uber drivers are "workers" entitled to minimum wage, paid holidays, and other statutory protections.

The case, Uber BV v. Aslam, rejected Uber's argument that it was merely a technology platform connecting independent drivers with passengers. The Supreme Court found that Uber exercised significant control over drivers: it set fares, controlled access through its app, penalized drivers who rejected rides, and retained contractual control over the driver-passenger relationship. The idea that drivers were in business for themselves, operating as genuine independent contractors, was, in the Court's words, "inconsistent with the commercial reality."

The decision applied the UK's intermediate "worker" classification—a category between employee and independent contractor that provides core protections including minimum wage, working time limits, and statutory holiday pay. While not providing the full suite of employee rights (such as protection against unfair dismissal), the worker classification significantly increased Uber's obligations to its drivers.

Following the Supreme Court ruling, Uber announced it would treat all 70,000 UK drivers as workers, providing them with the national minimum wage, holiday pay calculated at 12.07 percent of earnings, and enrollment in a pension scheme. The company estimated this would cost it significantly more per trip—costs that Uber said it would absorb rather than passing to consumers or reducing driver earnings.

Deliveroo and the ongoing battle

Not all UK platforms have accepted worker classification. Deliveroo, the food delivery platform, has continued to argue that its riders are genuinely self-employed and has structured its contracts to emphasize rider autonomy—including the right to use substitutes and work for competitors. In 2021, the Central Arbitration Committee rejected the Independent Workers' Union of Great Britain's attempt to secure collective bargaining rights for Deliveroo riders, accepting the company's argument that the substitution clause meant riders weren't workers.

However, individual riders continue to bring claims, and recent employment tribunal decisions have found that specific riders were workers despite the contractual language. Courts have looked beyond the written contracts to examine the actual working relationship, finding that theoretical rights (like substitution) that are rarely exercised in practice don't change the fundamental nature of control that platforms exercise.

The UK government has signaled potential reforms to simplify the employment status framework, which currently includes three categories: employees, workers, and self-employed. Whatever reforms emerge, the direction is clear: platform workers increasingly have access to statutory protections their companies fought to deny them.

Asia-Pacific: new models emerge

Singapore's groundbreaking approach

On January 1, 2025, Singapore became the first country in Asia to implement comprehensive protections for platform workers through the Platform Workers Act. Rather than forcing platform workers into traditional employment categories, Singapore created a new framework specifically designed for the gig economy.

The centerpiece is mandatory Central Provident Fund (CPF) contributions. CPF is Singapore's social security system, providing savings for retirement, healthcare, and housing. Traditionally, employers contribute 17 percent of wages and employees contribute 20 percent. Under the new law, platform companies must make CPF contributions for platform workers—a requirement they previously avoided entirely.

The contribution rates phase in gradually to allow platforms to adjust. By 2029, platform companies will contribute the full employer rate, providing gig workers with the same retirement and healthcare security as traditional employees. For Singapore's 73,000 platform workers, this represents a fundamental shift in their economic security.

The law also mandates work injury compensation coverage. Previously, platform workers who were injured on the job had no automatic protection—they had to purchase their own insurance or bear medical costs out of pocket. Now, platforms must provide work injury insurance, ensuring that riders injured in traffic accidents or delivery workers hurt on the job receive the same compensation as employees in traditional industries.

Singapore's model is particularly interesting because it creates protections without necessarily classifying workers as employees. The government recognized that some aspects of platform work—flexibility, multiple platform relationships, control over hours—genuinely differ from traditional employment. Rather than force a binary classification, Singapore created a third category with tailored protections. This approach may influence other countries seeking alternatives to the all-or-nothing employee/contractor debate.

Malaysia's comprehensive legislation

On September 9, 2025, Malaysia enacted the Gig Workers Act 2025, becoming the second Asian nation to pass comprehensive gig worker legislation. The law covers approximately 1.2 million Malaysian gig workers and establishes four pillars of protection.

First, the law creates a legal definition of gig workers as a distinct category, providing legal recognition for a workforce that previously existed in a regulatory vacuum. This recognition brings gig workers into the formal legal system, enabling enforcement of rights and resolution of disputes.

Second, the law grants negotiation rights, allowing gig workers to participate in discussions about income, conditions, and platform policies. While not quite collective bargaining in the traditional sense, this provision creates mechanisms for worker voice that didn't exist before.

Third, the law establishes dispute resolution mechanisms through government arbitration. Workers who believe their rights have been violated can seek redress through formal channels rather than being entirely at the mercy of platform policies.

Fourth, the law mandates social protections including minimum wage requirements, social security coverage, and mandatory insurance. These provisions address the core economic vulnerability of gig work: the lack of safety net protections that formal employment provides.

The Malaysian law emerged from sustained advocacy by the Malaysian Trades Union Congress and international labor organizations, demonstrating that worker organizing can produce legislative results even in countries without strong labor traditions.

Australia's wage theft crackdown

Australia has taken a different approach, focusing enforcement efforts on wage theft rather than comprehensive classification reform. The Fair Work Ombudsman has pursued major platforms for underpayment, recovering significant sums for delivery riders and drivers.

In 2024, the Ombudsman secured a $2.5 million penalty against Deliveroo Australia for failing to comply with the Fair Work Act. The regulator found that Deliveroo had engaged in sham contracting—describing riders as independent contractors when the actual working relationship constituted employment. The penalty represented one of the largest ever imposed on a gig economy company in Australia.

Separately, Australian courts have ruled that food delivery riders are employees, not contractors, in cases involving specific platforms. The Federal Court found that Diego Franco, a Deliveroo rider killed while making a delivery, was an employee—a finding that had significant implications for workers' compensation claims brought by his family.

Australia's new federal government has signaled interest in more comprehensive reforms, including potentially extending the Fair Work system to cover gig workers more explicitly. The direction mirrors trends elsewhere: increased recognition that platform workers cannot be left outside the protective framework that covers other workers.

United States: the battle continues

California and Proposition 22

The United States remains the global outlier in gig worker regulation, with platform companies having successfully defended the independent contractor model through massive political spending. The epicenter of this battle has been California.

In 2019, California enacted Assembly Bill 5 (AB5), which codified a strict test for determining employment status. Under the "ABC test" created by AB5, workers are presumed to be employees unless the hiring entity can prove all three of the following: the worker is free from control and direction over performance of work, the worker performs work outside the usual course of the hiring entity's business, and the worker is engaged in an independently established trade or occupation of the same nature as the work performed.

The third prong was particularly threatening to platforms. Uber's business is providing rides; Lyft's business is providing rides; DoorDash's business is delivering food. How could these companies claim that drivers and delivery workers perform work "outside the usual course" of the platform's business?

Rather than comply with AB5, the major gig platforms spent $205 million—the most expensive ballot campaign in American history—to pass Proposition 22 in November 2020. Uber contributed $59.5 million, DoorDash $52.1 million, and Lyft $49.0 million. The proposition created a special exemption for app-based drivers and delivery workers, maintaining their independent contractor status while providing some limited benefits.

Legal challenges to Proposition 22 reached the California Supreme Court, which in July 2024 unanimously upheld the measure. The court rejected arguments that the proposition unconstitutionally limited the legislature's authority, finding that voters had the power to create this exemption. An estimated 1.4 million California gig workers remain classified as independent contractors under Prop 22's special rules.

What Prop 22 actually provides

Proposition 22's proponents advertised it as providing benefits to gig workers while preserving flexibility. The reality is more complicated.

Prop 22 guarantees 120 percent of local minimum wage—but only for "engaged time," defined as time spent actively completing a ride or delivery. The substantial time workers spend waiting for orders, driving to pickup locations, or positioning themselves in busy areas doesn't count. Studies have found that after accounting for all working time, expenses, and the lack of employer contributions to benefits, many Prop 22 workers earn well below minimum wage.

The proposition provides healthcare stipends—but only for workers who average 25 or more hours per week of engaged time, and the stipends cover only a fraction of actual healthcare costs. Workers who log 15-24 hours of engaged time receive a partial stipend; those below 15 hours receive nothing.

Accident insurance under Prop 22 covers medical expenses for injuries occurring during engaged time, but coverage is limited compared to workers' compensation programs that would apply to employees. And because engaged time excludes substantial portions of actual working time, workers injured while driving to pickups or waiting for orders may not be covered.

The promised flexibility is real but comes at a steep cost. Workers can set their own schedules—but they bear all the risks and expenses of the business while platforms capture most of the value their labor creates.

New York: the minimum wage breakthrough

While California locked in the independent contractor model, New York took a different path. In 2023, New York City implemented the highest minimum wage for app-based delivery workers in the country: $19.96 per hour, covering all working time (not just engaged time).

The rate was calculated based on actual expenses delivery workers incur, ensuring that after accounting for costs, workers receive at least minimum wage. The regulation also requires platforms to provide restroom access—a basic human need that app-based workers, lacking fixed workplaces, often struggle to meet.

Delivery companies fought the regulation fiercely. DoorDash, Uber Eats, and Grubhub sued to block it, arguing the methodology was flawed and the rate was too high. Courts rejected these challenges, and the minimum wage took effect.

New York's approach demonstrates an alternative to the all-or-nothing classification debate. Rather than requiring platforms to classify workers as employees, the city regulated specific working conditions directly. Workers remain independent contractors but with guaranteed minimum compensation. This model may influence other cities and states seeking to improve gig worker conditions without protracted classification battles.

State-by-state variation

The patchwork nature of U.S. gig worker regulation means that protections vary dramatically depending on where you work.

Washington State enacted paid sick leave requirements for gig workers, ensuring that drivers and delivery workers can take time off when ill without losing income entirely. Massachusetts has considered but not yet passed similar protections. Colorado has piloted portable benefits programs that would allow workers to accumulate benefits across multiple platforms. Several states have enacted transparency requirements, forcing platforms to disclose more information about how pay is calculated.

Meanwhile, many states have enacted laws that explicitly affirm independent contractor status for gig workers, insulating platforms from misclassification challenges. The legislative landscape reflects the enormous resources platforms have devoted to lobbying and political contributions.

The federal government has largely stayed out of gig worker classification, though the Biden administration Department of Labor issued a rule tightening the test for independent contractor status under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The rule's fate under subsequent administrations remains uncertain.

Your rights wherever you work

Universal protections

Regardless of your classification or location, certain rights apply universally. Platforms cannot discriminate against you based on race, gender, age, disability, religion, national origin, or other protected characteristics. This protection comes from civil rights laws that cover all workers, not just employees. If you believe you've been deactivated or treated unfavorably because of a protected characteristic, you have recourse through agencies like the EEOC in the United States or equivalent bodies elsewhere.

You are entitled to full payment of all compensation you've earned. This includes 100 percent of tips—a right the Federal Trade Commission has enforced against platforms like DoorDash, which settled allegations that it misappropriated customer tips. It includes all bonuses and incentives promised by the platform. It includes payment for all completed work, even if the platform later cancels the order or trip. Platforms that withhold earned compensation may be liable for wage theft.

You have the right to organize and discuss working conditions with other workers. This right exists even for independent contractors; what's prohibited is formal collective bargaining without employee status, not basic association and advocacy. Groups like Rideshare Drivers United and Gig Workers Rising have organized around specific campaigns—such as protests against rate cuts or demands for transparency—without requiring formal union recognition.

You have the right to safety. Platforms cannot require you to work in genuinely dangerous conditions, and they must provide reasonably safe equipment and processes. Workers injured on the job may have claims even as independent contractors, depending on jurisdiction and circumstances.

Challenging deactivation

One of the most feared aspects of platform work is deactivation—termination of access to the platform, often with minimal explanation and no effective appeal. Platforms exercise this power frequently, sometimes for legitimate reasons (safety violations, fraud) but often for reasons workers don't understand or disagree with.

Your rights regarding deactivation depend on your jurisdiction. In the European Union, the Platform Work Directive will require human review before significant adverse actions and meaningful appeal processes. In some U.S. jurisdictions, platforms must provide written explanations for deactivation. Everywhere, deactivation that constitutes discrimination (based on race, gender, etc.) is illegal regardless of your classification.

Data shows that deactivation appeals succeed more often than many workers expect. Workers who properly document their case and persist through appeal processes achieve reinstatement in approximately 42 percent of cases overall—and success rates rise to 67 percent when workers can demonstrate factual errors in the platform's allegations.

If you're deactivated, request a written explanation immediately. Document your work history, ratings, and any communications with the platform. File a formal appeal through the platform's process, creating a paper trail. If the platform refuses to reinstate you and you believe the deactivation was wrongful, consider filing complaints with relevant agencies (labor departments, civil rights agencies) or consulting an attorney.

Documenting your work

Whether or not you ever face a dispute with a platform, documentation protects you. Screenshot your earnings summaries regularly—platforms have been known to change historical records, and having your own copies ensures you can verify what you earned. Track your actual working hours, including time spent waiting for orders, driving to pickups, and other time not captured in the platform's "engaged time" calculations.

Keep records of your expenses: mileage, fuel, vehicle maintenance, phone and data plans, insulated bags and other equipment. These expenses matter both for tax deductions and for calculating your true hourly earnings. If you're ever classified as an employee (through litigation or regulatory change), expense records help establish backpay claims.

Save all communications from the platform, including promotional offers, policy changes, and messages about your account status. If a platform promises a bonus for completing certain deliveries, screenshot the offer—you may need proof later if the bonus doesn't appear.

Enforcement and accountability

Class action recoveries

Despite their resources and legal sophistication, platforms have paid billions of dollars to settle claims from workers they misclassified or whose pay they manipulated.

In 2024 and 2025, major recoveries included the FTC's $6.7 million settlement with DoorDash over tip misappropriation, $32 million from Uber for misclassification claims in New York, $100 million from Uber over upfront pricing practices that allegedly shortchanged drivers, and $228 million in biometric privacy settlements involving gig platforms. The cumulative total recovered for gig workers through litigation exceeded $1.2 billion in 2024 alone.

These settlements represent only the tip of the iceberg—the cases that were filed, survived legal challenges, and reached resolution. Many more workers with valid claims never pursue them, lacking knowledge of their rights or resources to take on billion-dollar corporations.

Class action settlements typically provide automatic payments to eligible workers who can be identified through platform records, though some require workers to file claims. If you worked for a platform during the relevant period, you may be entitled to compensation without having to file your own lawsuit.

Regulatory enforcement

Government agencies have increasingly targeted platform labor practices. The Federal Trade Commission has pursued platforms for deceptive practices, including misrepresentation of earnings potential and misappropriation of tips. State attorneys general have brought enforcement actions for misclassification and wage theft. Labor departments have audited platforms and assessed penalties for violations of wage and hour laws.

In the European Union, implementation of the Platform Work Directive will bring substantial new enforcement resources to bear. Member states must establish competent authorities to oversee platform compliance, and workers will have access to streamlined dispute resolution mechanisms.

Enforcement remains challenging because platforms operate across jurisdictions and can restructure their operations to avoid regulatory reach. But the trend is clearly toward greater scrutiny and accountability.

Looking ahead

The regulatory revolution of 2024-2025 is not the end of the story—it's the beginning of a new chapter in the relationship between platforms and workers.

Implementation remains the key challenge. The EU Platform Work Directive must be transposed into 27 national legal systems, each with its own labor law traditions and enforcement capacities. Asian countries are watching Singapore and Malaysia to see how their new laws work in practice. In the United States, the state-by-state patchwork will likely continue, though federal regulation remains possible depending on political developments.

Technology is also evolving. As artificial intelligence becomes more sophisticated, algorithmic management will become more pervasive—and potentially more exploitative. Workers and regulators will need to stay ahead of new forms of control that may not fit neatly into existing legal categories.

But the fundamental shift is real. The idea that platform companies can build massive enterprises on the labor of millions while denying those workers basic protections has been rejected in much of the world. The question is no longer whether gig workers deserve rights—it's what specific rights they'll receive and how effectively those rights will be enforced.

Resources

Worker organizations

Rideshare Drivers United (ridesharedriversunited.com) organizes Uber, Lyft, and other rideshare drivers in the United States. Gig Workers Rising (gigworkersrising.org) coordinates campaigns for gig worker rights. The International Transport Workers' Federation (itfglobal.org) supports transport worker organizing globally, including platform workers.

Legal resources

The National Employment Law Project (nelp.org) provides research and advocacy on gig worker issues. Legal Aid offices in your area may provide free assistance for employment-related claims. Employment attorneys often take gig worker cases on contingency, charging nothing unless you recover.

Government agencies

The EEOC (eeoc.gov) handles discrimination complaints for all workers regardless of classification. The FTC (ftc.gov) addresses deceptive practices and wage theft. State labor departments investigate wage and hour violations. State attorneys general may pursue enforcement against platforms.

International resources

The European Commission maintains information about the Platform Work Directive implementation. The International Labour Organization (ilo.org) publishes research on platform work globally. National labor ministries in Singapore, Malaysia, and other countries with new regulations provide implementation guidance.

Conclusion: power is shifting

The gig economy was built on a particular vision of work: atomized individuals competing for algorithmically-assigned tasks, bearing all the risks while platforms captured most of the value. This vision served shareholders well. It did not serve workers.

The regulatory transformation of 2024-2025 reflects a global recognition that this model is unsustainable. When 28 million European workers gain employment protections through the Platform Work Directive, when Singaporean platform workers begin receiving retirement contributions, when Malaysian gig workers gain access to social security—these changes represent a fundamental rebalancing of power between platforms and the people who make them function.

The battle is not over. In the United States especially, platforms continue to spend enormous sums defending the independent contractor model. Enforcement of new regulations will require sustained effort. And platforms will adapt, finding new ways to extract value while minimizing obligations.

But workers have more power than platforms want them to believe. Documentation protects you. Knowledge of your rights empowers you. Connection with other workers builds collective strength. And the global regulatory trend is unmistakably in workers' favor.

You are not just a pin on a digital map, an interchangeable unit of labor to be activated and deactivated at algorithmic whim. You are a worker with rights—rights that are expanding and strengthening around the world. Know them. Use them. And join the movement to secure them for everyone.

---

This guide provides general information about gig worker rights. It does not constitute legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Consult with a lawyer or worker advocacy organization familiar with your situation for specific guidance.

Sources: European Parliament Platform Work Directive, Singapore Ministry of Manpower, UK Supreme Court Uber Judgment, California Supreme Court Prop 22 Decision, NELP Research

Last Updated: December 2025