Entre algoritmos y derechos: trabajo en plataformas digitales y desprotección laboral en América Latina J. Law Epistemic Stud. (July - December 2025) 3(2): 7-12 https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15933100 ISSN 3091-1575 ORIGINAL ARTICLE Between algorithms and rights: platform work and labor disempowerment in Latin America  Fatsi S. Cedeño fescedeno@sangregorio.edu.ec Universidad San Gregorio de Portoviejo, Manabí, Ecuador. Received: 01 April 2025 / Accepted: 06 July 2025 / Published online: 31 July 2025 © The Author(s) 2025 Fatsi S. Cedeño · Darley G. Mero Abstract Platform-based work has transformed traditional forms of employment, generating new challenges for labor law. This study aims to critically analyze the link between the expansion of digitally mediated work through applications and the absence of minimum labor guarantees from a labor law perspective focused on Latin America. A qualitative methodology was employed, uti- lizing a documentary design and interpretive analysis of norma- tive, doctrinal, and empirical sources, including scientific articles and international reports. The findings revealed that most platform workers are excluded from social security systems and legal protec- tions due to ambiguous contractual classifications that define them as independent contractors, despite presenting clear indicators of subordination, continuity, and dependence. Forms of algorithmic control, lack of collective representation, and regulatory gaps were identified, all of which deepen labor precariousness. The discussion concluded that it is necessary to apply the classical principles of labor law—such as the primacy of reality, non-waivability, and pro- tection—to these new digital forms of employment. Finally, nor- mative guidelines were proposed to guarantee fundamental rights, promote algorithmic transparency, and adapt labor regulation to the transformations of the digital world of work. Keywords digital labor, platform work, labor law, algorithmic subordination, labor precariousness, legal regulation. Resumen El trabajo en plataformas digitales ha transformado las formas tradicionales de empleo, generando nuevos desafíos para el derecho del trabajo. El presente estudio tuvo como objetivo ana- lizar críticamente el vínculo entre la expansión del trabajo digital mediado por aplicaciones y la ausencia de garantías laborales mí- nimas, desde una perspectiva jurídico-laboral centrada en Améri- ca Latina. Se adoptó una metodología de enfoque cualitativo, con diseño documental y análisis interpretativo de fuentes normativas, doctrinales y empíricas extraídas de artículos científicos e informes internacionales. Los resultados evidenciaron que la mayoría de los trabajadores de plataformas son excluidos de los sistemas de segu- ridad social y protección legal, debido a una calificación contrac- tual ambigua que los define como independientes, a pesar de que presentan elementos claros de subordinación, continuidad y depen- dencia. Se identificaron formas de control algorítmico, ausencia de representación colectiva y vacíos regulatorios que profundizan la precariedad laboral. La discusión concluyó que es necesario aplicar los principios clásicos del derecho del trabajo —primacía de la rea- lidad, irrenunciabilidad y protección— a las nuevas formas digita- les de empleo. Finalmente, se propusieron lineamientos normativos para garantizar derechos fundamentales, promover transparencia algorítmica y adaptar la regulación laboral a las transformaciones del mundo del trabajo digital. Palabras clave trabajo digital; plataformas digitales; derecho la- boral; subordinación algorítmica; precarización laboral; regulación jurídica. How to cite Cedeño, F. S. & Mero, D. G. (2025). Between algorithms and rights platform work and labor disempowerment in Latin America. Journal of Law and Epistemic Studies, 3(2), 7-12. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15933100

J. Law Epistemic Stud. (July - December 2025) 3(2): 7-12 8 Introduction The accelerated digitalization of economies has given rise to new forms of work organization, with digital platforms standing out prominently. These technologies, characterized by mediating between the supply and demand of services through algorithms and mobile applications, have reconfig- ured traditional labor relations by introducing new dynamics of hiring, supervision, and remuneration (ILO, 2021a). Plat- form work has been promoted under the promise of flexibili- ty, autonomy, and rapid access to the labor market, especially for young people, migrants, and unemployed workers. How- ever, behind this apparent freedom lies, in many cases, a pro- found precariousness of labor and a disconnection from the classical legal framework of labor law (Morales Ramírez, 2025; Maya et al., 2022). Various studies in Latin America have documented that the vast majority of platform workers do not enjoy fundamental labor rights, such as access to social security, sick leave, ma- ternity benefits, paid vacations, or job stability (Carrillo et al., 2025; ILO, 2022). This situation is further exacerbated by the lack of formal recognition of employment relation- ships, which allows platforms to evade employer obliga- tions. Instead, they impose working conditions through ad- hesion contracts that classify workers as independent service providers, thereby concealing employment relationships mediated by technological mechanisms of control, task as- signment, and algorithmic evaluation (ILO, 2021b; Berg et al., 2019). This phenomenon, known as the “uberization of work,” challenges the principle of the primacy of reality enshrined in most labor law systems in Latin America. This principle establishes that, beyond the contractual label or the parties’ will, the practical nature of the relationship between the ser- vice provider and the contracting entity must prevail. In this sense, the legal qualification of the employment relationship should consider factors such as economic dependence, lack of ownership over the means of production, continuity of ser- vice, and the existence of orders or instructions—even when these originate from an automated system (ILO, 2021c; Mo- rales Ramírez, 2025). In practice, the intensive use of technologies by platforms has generated new forms of subordination and labor surveil- lance, in which algorithms replace human supervisors and user ratings can determine access to work and continuity on the platform. This has given rise to what some authors call “algorithmic subordination” (Maya et al., 2022), a concept that enables the updating of classical labor law criteria in light of new non-human yet equally decisive forms of con- trol. Despite these findings, the legislative response in Latin America has so far been limited, fragmented, and in many cases insufficient. While some initiatives aim to adapt le- gal frameworks to include platform workers within exist- ing labor legislation explicitly, other proposals—shaped by business interests—insist on maintaining the status of self-employed workers with minimal rights and no effective guarantee of social protection (Carrillo et al., 2025; ILO, 2022). This tension between technological innovation and social justice calls for critical reflection from labor law to ensure the protection of fundamental rights for workers in digital environments. Within this framework, the present article aims to critical- ly analyze the normative, doctrinal, and empirical dimen- sions of platform work regulation in Latin America. From a legal and social perspective, it seeks to examine the tensions between the logic of the digital market and the principle of protection of human labor, identifying regulatory gaps, best practices, and normative proposals that contribute to a fair- er and more responsive labor regulation adapted to the new realities of work. Methodology This research employs a qualitative, legal, and socio-nor- mative approach with a descriptive-analytical and critical scope, focusing on the transformation of human labor within the context of digital platforms in Latin America. It is fra- med within the interpretive-comprehensive paradigm, as it seeks to understand the meanings, normative implications, and social consequences of platform-based work through the analysis of legal norms, specialized literature, and available empirical evidence. From a methodological design perspective, a theoretical and documentary research strategy was adopted, with a dog- matic-legal focus, complemented by an indirect empirical component based on secondary data. This choice addresses the need to tackle a complex phenomenon that challenges fundamental categories of labor law—such as subordination, dependence, alienation, and stability—within contexts sha- ped by digitalization and the data-driven economy (Creswell & Poth, 2018). The study was structured around three analytical levels: a) Normative analysis A systematic examination of formal sources of law was conducted, with a particular focus on internatio- nal labor standards, specifically the conventions and recommendations of the International Labour Orga- nization (ILO) related to decent work, freedom of as- sociation, social protection, and working conditions. comparative Latin American legislation, including pro- posals, bills, and parliamentary debates related to the re- cognition of employment relationships in digital work; Moreover, general principles of labor law—such as the pri-

J. Law Epistemic Stud. (July - December 2025) 3(2): 7-12 9 macy of reality, the protective principle, and the inalienable nature of labor rights—are considered essential for evalua- ting the suitability of new labor forms within existing legal categories. b) Doctrinal and bibliographic análisis A critical review of recent academic publications (2021– 2025) was conducted, focusing on peer-reviewed scientific journals and reputable publishers. The following criteria were used for source selection: • Thematic relevance (digital labor, labor law, platfor- ms) • Methodological rigor (peer-reviewed articles) • Geographic scope (Latin America) • Timeliness and accessibility Eight highly relevant articles were included, published in journals such as Revista de la Facultad de Derecho de Méxi- co and Reincisol, as well as documents from organizations like the ILO and the Observatory on Labor and Critical Thought. The sources were classified and analyzed using le- gal categories such as “autonomy vs. subordination,” “algo- rithmic control,” “digital informality,” and “universal social protection” (Morales Ramírez, 2025; Carrillo et al., 2025; Maya et al., 2022). c) Indirect empirical analysis (secondary data) Statistical studies, surveys, and diagnostics produced by the ILO and research centers were incorporated, focusing on working conditions, income, access to rights, and the per- ceptions of platform workers in the region. These sources include: • Technical reports on the situation of delivery workers, drivers, and digital microworkers • Indicators of informality, legal insecurity, union affi- liation, and access to social security (ILO, 2022; Berg et al., 2019) • Surveys conducted among platform workers in va- rious Latin American countries between 2019 and 2023 Legal and discursive content analysis techniques were em- ployed to organize the information into key thematic catego- ries. The triangulation of doctrinal, normative, and empirical sources enabled the identification of contradictions between existing legislation and labor realities, as well as the deve- lopment of interpretative criteria aimed at protecting human labor in digital environments. It should be noted that this research does not include field- work or direct interviews; therefore, its validity relies on the methodological soundness of the secondary sources used and the consistency of the legal-doctrinal analysis. Results and discussion The analysis of current legal frameworks in Latin Amer- ica reveals a structural ambiguity regarding the legal status of digital platform workers. In most countries in the region, these workers are classified as independent contractors or even as users of the application, thereby avoiding the ap- plication of labor law and its minimum guarantees (Morales Ramírez, 2025; ILO, 2022). This legal treatment is based on the presumed “autono- my” of the worker, when in fact the relationship between platforms and workers exhibits typical characteristics of an employment relationship, such as continuity of service, regular payment, lack of ownership over the means of pro- duction, and a specific form of subordination (algorithmic). As established by the principle of the primacy of reality— enshrined in ILO conventions and numerous national labor law systems—what must prevail is the actual nature of the relationship, not the formal designation of the contract (ILO, 2021b). Empirical findings indicate that, rather than operating with complete autonomy, platform workers are subject to algo- rithmic control systems that regulate nearly every aspect of their activity, from task assignment to fare determination and performance evaluation (Maya et al., 2022). These mecha- nisms replicate the classic functions of the employer but are mediated by opaque and unilateral technologies. This phenomenon has been conceptualized as “algorith- mic subordination,” since workers are subjected to automatic instructions and evaluations that determine their continued access to the platform. As noted by Morales Ramírez (2025) and the ILO (2021), this new form of technological subordi- nation does not exempt employers from their legal responsi- bilities; on the contrary, it calls for a critical reassessment of the employment relationship in order to avoid the simulation of autonomous work arrangements that conceal absolute de- pendency. Legal vulnerability translates into a situation of structural precariousness, where workers lack fundamental rights such as social security, paid leave, job stability, or collective bar- gaining. Regional reports estimate that more than 70% of platform workers are not affiliated with any social protection system, and that their incomes often fall below the legal min- imum wage (ILO, 2022; Berg et al., 2019). This digital precariousness is further exacerbated by the fact that platforms externalize all risks—accidents, illness, operational costs—to the worker, generating a labor model in which corporate profit grows by transferring responsi- bilities. As noted in Latin American legal scholarship, this constitutes a new form of legalized informality, cloaked in the discourse of innovation and technology (Carrillo et al., 2025; Aguilera, 2022). Aguilera (2022) warns that this ten- sion reflects a deeper conflict between two legal models: one

J. Law Epistemic Stud. (July - December 2025) 3(2): 7-12 10 centered on the protection of workers’ human rights, and an- other that prioritizes market deregulation under the banner of innovation. Another key finding is the near-total absence of collective representation mechanisms. The individualistic and frag- mented logic of platform-based work—where each worker operates in isolation—prevents the development of collec- tive defense strategies such as unionization, bargaining, or collective legal action (Morales Ramírez, 2025). This situation violates the fundamental right to freedom of association and collective bargaining, protected by ILO Con- ventions No. 87 and 98. It creates a structural power imbal- ance between transnational platforms and dispersed workers, who lack both voice and institutional labor representation. Even in countries where delivery associations or digital co- operatives have been established, their legal recognition re- mains uncertain or insufficient to generate structural changes in the regulation of digital labor. Some countries have begun to debate legislative proposals to incorporate platform workers under labor law. These pro- posals include: the presumption of an employment relation- ship when specific indicators of dependency are met, man- datory access to social security, requirements for algorithmic transparency, and guarantees for union rights. However, these initiatives face strong resistance from dig- ital platforms, which lobby to preserve flexible contracting models without employer obligations (Institute for Employ- ment Rights, 2025). This tension reflects a deeper conflict between two legal paradigms: one based on the protection of workers’ human rights, and another that prioritizes market deregulation under the guise of innovation. From a rights-based approach to labor law, empirical and normative evidence demonstrates that platform work does not constitute a sui generis category requiring a new legal status. Rather, it can and should be addressed through the classical principles of labor law: protection, non-waivabili- ty, the primacy of reality, and continuity (Morales Ramírez, 2025; ILO, 2022). These principles enable the overcoming of contractual fic- tions imposed by platforms and the recognition that, when economic and organizational dependence exists, an employ- ment relationship is present—regardless of the technological medium through which labor is performed. In this sense, the solution is not to “create a third status” between employee and self-employed, but to apply labor law using updated cri- teria that reflect contemporary forms of subordination. Table 1 presents the main critical dimensions of platform work in Latin America. The comparative table offers a structured visualization of the study’s main findings, organized into five critical di- mensions that synthesize the core issues surrounding plat- form-based work in Latin America. First, a significant regulatory gap is identified, resulting from the lack of legal recognition of the employment rela- tionship. This gap serves as the foundation for the exclusion of fundamental rights and protections. Second, algorithmic control emerges as a new form of sub- ordination that reproduces, under a technological guise, the employer’s organizational and disciplinary power. This digi- tal subordination conceals the conditions of dependency and hinders their recognition under traditional legal frameworks. The third dimension reveals a structural precariousness, marked by the absence of social and labor protection, low incomes, and exposure to risk without coverage. This is compounded by the near-total absence of collective repre- sentation—an element that weakens the possibilities for re- sistance and negotiation in the face of conditions unilaterally imposed by platforms. Finally, it is observed that legislative initiatives aimed at addressing these asymmetries face political and economic resistance that hinders their implementation. Taken together, the data in the table support the article’s central thesis: plat- form-based work operates under a logic of delaboralization that must be confronted through the fundamental principles Table 1. Critical dimensions and structural challenges of platform work in Latin America Critical dimension Key findings Authors / Sources Legal recognition Legal ambiguity, denial of employment relationship Morales Ramírez (2025); ILO (2022) Digital subordination Algorithmic control and concealed functional dependency Maya et al. (2022); Berg et al. (2019) Exclusion from social protection No social security, paid leave, or accident coverage Carrillo et al. (2025); ILO (2021b) Union organization Lack of representation and difficulty in collective bargaining Morales Ramírez (2025); ILO (2021a) Regulatory reforms Legislative proposals often face resistance from businesses and institutions. González G. (2023)

J. Law Epistemic Stud. (July - December 2025) 3(2): 7-12 11 of labor law. Conclusions Platform work, far from being marginal, has become a growing labor model operating outside the traditional pro- tections of labor law, relying on algorithmic control, outsour- cing of responsibilities, and the transfer of risks to workers, who lack essential rights such as social security or job sta- bility. This situation contradicts fundamental principles and international commitments, reproducing dependency rela- tions under a technological discourse that hinders regulation. Therefore, it is proposed to update legislation to recognize new forms of dependency, guarantee rights regardless of the technological medium, ensure transparency in the use of al- gorithms, and promote forms of union organization adapted to digital labor. References Aguilera, J. P. (2022). Gobernanza laboral y plataformas di- gitales: desafíos para los derechos del trabajo. Derecho y Sociedad, 15(2), 45–67. Berg, J., Furrer, M., Harmon, E., Rani, U., & Silberman, M. S. (2019). Digital labour platforms and the future of work: Towards decent work in the online world. Inter- national Labour Office. https://www.ilo.org/global/pub- lications/books/WCMS_645337/lang--en/index.htm Boccardo, G., Castillo Larraín, A., & Ojeda Pereira, I. (2022). Beyond Algorithmic Control: Ordering and Delivery Platforms Labor Process in the Chilean Retail Produc- tion Network. Journal of Labor and Society, 25(3), 329–366. https://doi.org/10.1163/24714607-bja10063 Caicedo, C., & Castillo, A. (2024). The gig economy in Chile: Examining labour conditions and regulato- ry impact. Journal of Labor Policy, 13(1), 1–20. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ S2666378323000156 Carrillo, J. E., Cabrera, C. P., Macias, S. M., & Galarza, C. A. (2025). El teletrabajo y la economía de plataformas en Ecuador: Desafíos legales y protección de derechos laborales en un contexto de transformación digital. Re- incisol, 4(7), 2250–2273. https://doi.org/10.59282/rein- cisol.V4(7)2250-2273 Cremaschi, A., Lee, D.-J., & Leonelli, M. (2025). Will AI take my job? Evolving perceptions of automation and labor risk in Latin America [Preprint]. arXiv. https:// doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2505.08841 Donovan, S. A., & Bradley, D. H. (2021). What does the gig economy mean for workers? Congressional Research Service Report R44365. https://crsreports.congress. gov/product/pdf/R/R44365 Institute for Employment Rights. (2025). Labour rights in the digital economy: A first look at the CBR Platform Work Index. CBR Platform Work Index Analysis. https:// digit-research.org/insights/labour-rights-in-the-digi- tal-economy/ Morales Ramírez, M. A. (2025). Trabajo en plataformas dig- itales: Su regulación en México. Revista de la Facultad de Derecho de México, 75(292), 137–164. https://doi. org/10.22201/fder.24488933e.2025.292.91771 Maya, N., Quevedo, T., Carrión, D., & Sánchez, P. (2022). Hacia una caracterización de las y los repartidores y de la economía de plataformas en Ecuador. Obser- vatorio del Trabajo y el Pensamiento Crítico. https:// trabajoypensamientocritico.com/wp-content/up- loads/2022/02/caracterizacion-plataformas-ecuador.pdf Organización Internacional del Trabajo (OIT). (2021). Ga- rantizar el trabajo decente en las plataformas digitales de trabajo. En El trabajo en las plataformas digitales de trabajo (pp. 211–249). Biblioteca Jurídica Virtual UNAM. https://archivos.juridicas.unam.mx/www/bjv/ libros/14/6903/10.pdf Organización Internacional del Trabajo (OIT). (2021). Las plataformas digitales y la redefinición del trabajo: Oportunidades y retos para los trabajadores. En El tra- bajo en las plataformas digitales de trabajo (pp. 147– 209). Biblioteca Jurídica Virtual UNAM. https://archi- vos.juridicas.unam.mx/www/bjv/libros/14/6903/9.pdf Organización Internacional del Trabajo (OIT). (2021). La proliferación de las plataformas digitales de traba- jo en la economía: ¿Cómo y por qué las utilizan las empresas? En El trabajo en las plataformas digitales de trabajo (pp. 115–145). Biblioteca Jurídica Virtual UNAM. https://archivos.juridicas.unam.mx/www/bjv/ libros/14/6903/8.pdf Organización Internacional del Trabajo (OIT). (2022). El trabajo en las plataformas digitales de reparto y trans- porte en Ecuador: Diagnóstico y recomendaciones para promover el trabajo decente y la protección so- cial. Oficina de la OIT para los Países Andinos. https:// www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---americas/---ro- lima/documents/publication/wcms_864345.pdf Posada, J. (2021). The coloniality of data work in Lat- in America. In Proceedings of the 2021 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society (pp. 277–278). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi. org/10.1145/3461702.3462471 Smart, R. (2024). Digital labour platforms and the crisis of social reproduction in Latin America (Policy Paper No. 24_Smart_Final_01). Harvard Kennedy School. https:// www.hks.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/2024-08/24_ Smart_Final_01.pdf Conflicts of interest The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest. Author contributions Fatsi S. Cedeño and Darley G. Mero: Conceptualization, data curation, formal analysis, investigation, methodology, supervision, validation, visualization, drafting the original

J. Law Epistemic Stud. (July - December 2025) 3(2): 7-12 12 manuscript and writing, review, and editing. Data availability statement The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request. Statement on the use of AI The authors acknowledge the use of generative AI and AI-assisted technologies to improve the readability and cla- rity of the article. Disclaimer/Editor’s note The statements, opinions, and data contained in all publi- cations are solely those of the individual authors and con- tributors and not of Journal of Law and Epistemic Studies. Journal of Law and Epistemic Studies and/or the editors disclaim any responsibility for any injury to people or pro- perty resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions, or pro- ducts mentioned in the content.