Gestión algorítmica del trabajo y transformación de los derechos
colectivos en la economía de Plataformas
J. Law Epistemic Stud. (2026) 4: e175
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.21184350
ISSN 3091-1575
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Algorithmic management of work and the transformation of collective
labour rights in the platform economy
Digna Z. Gorozabel-Lucas
Universidad Técnica de Manabí, Portoviejo, Ecuador.
Received: 03 April 2026 / Accepted: 30 April 2026 / Published online: 31 May 2026
© The Author(s) 2026
Digna Z. Gorozabel-Lucas
Abstract This article examines the transformation of the funda-
mental categories of Labour Law resulting from the incorporation
of algorithmic management into the platform economy. Its objec-
tive is to analyse how articial intelligence (AI), algorithmic man-
agement and data-driven technologies, including People Analytics,
are reshaping employment relationships and transforming the pro-
tection of collective labour rights. A qualitative methodology was
adopted, based on doctrinal legal analysis, documentary research
and the comparative legal method, using Directive (EU) 2024/2831
as the principal analytical framework and contrasting it with re-
cent legislative, doctrinal and jurisprudential developments across
selected Ibero-American jurisdictions. The ndings reveal that the
apparent autonomy of platform workers often conceals sophisticat-
ed forms of algorithmic control that redene managerial authority
and transcend the traditional distinction between employees and
independent contractors. The study also identies the emergence
of Unionism 4.0 and data activism as innovative forms of collec-
tive organisation capable of responding to the digital fragmenta-
tion of work. It concludes that algorithmic transparency, meaning-
ful human oversight and the right to an explanation of automated
decision-making constitute essential safeguards for the eective
protection of collective labour rights, the preservation of balanced
employment relationships and the maintenance of eective judicial
oversight within increasingly digitalised labour markets.
Keywords algorithmic management of work, platform economy,
collective labour rights, employment relations, articial intelli-
gence.
Resumen El presente artículo analiza la transformación de las ca-
tegorías fundamentales del Derecho del Trabajo a partir de la incor-
poración de la gestión algorítmica en la economía de plataformas.
Su objetivo es examinar cómo la inteligencia articial (IA), la ges-
tión algorítmica y las tecnologías basadas en datos, incluido People
Analytics, reconguran las relaciones laborales y transforman la
protección de los derechos colectivos. Se empleó una metodología
cualitativa basada en el análisis jurídico-doctrinal, la investigación
documental y el método jurídico comparado, tomando como eje la
Directiva (UE) 2024/2831 y su contraste con los desarrollos norma-
tivos, doctrinales y jurisprudenciales de diversos países iberoame-
ricanos. Los resultados evidencian que la aparente autonomía de
los trabajadores de plataformas encubre mecanismos sosticados
de control algorítmico que redenen el ejercicio del poder directivo
y desbordan la tradicional distinción entre trabajo subordinado y
trabajo independiente. Asimismo, se identica el surgimiento del
Sindicalismo 4.0 y del activismo de datos como nuevas formas de
organización colectiva frente a la fragmentación digital del trabajo.
Se concluye que la transparencia algorítmica, la supervisión huma-
na efectiva y el derecho a la explicabilidad de las decisiones auto-
matizadas constituyen garantías indispensables para la protección
de los derechos colectivos, el equilibrio de las relaciones laborales
y la ecacia del control jurisdiccional en los entornos digitales.
Palabras clave gestión algorítmica del trabajo, economía de pla-
taformas, derechos colectivos del trabajo, relaciones laborales, in-
teligencia articial.
How to cite
Gorozabel-Lucas, D. Z. (2026). Algorithmic management of work and the transformation of collective labour rights in the platform economy. Journal of Law
and Epistemic Studies, 4, e175. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.21184350
J. Law Epistemic Stud. (2026) 4: e175
Introduction
The conceptual architecture of contemporary Labour Law
was built upon the material realities of the Industrial Revolu-
tion and its subsequent consolidation within the Fordist-Tay-
lorist model. Under that paradigm, the employment relation-
ship was manifested in a specic physical space—the factory
or the workshop—within clearly delimited working hours
and under the direct, visible and individualized supervi-
sion of a human employer or managerial delegates (Goldin,
2020). Legal subordination, as the gravitational axis and pre-
requisite for the application of protective labour legislation,
was traditionally understood as the worker’s submission to
the employer’s powers of direction, organization and disci-
pline (Aloisi & De Stefano, 2022).
However, the advent of the Fourth Industrial Revolution,
driven by digitalization, articial intelligence and the pro-
liferation of platform economies or the gig economy, has
caused a disruptive rupture in the foundations of labour law
doctrine. The phenomenon of the platformization of work
has displaced the physical boundaries of the organized en-
terprise, diluted the concept of the workplace and replaced
vertical human hierarchy with the governance of proprietary
algorithmic systems (European Commission, 2023). In this
new ecosystem, technology multinationals have instrumen-
talized the narrative of the service provider’s “autonomy”
and “entrepreneurship” (Aloisi & De Stefano, 2022). Under
the label of “partners” or freelancers, digital platforms con-
tractually congure their legal relationships as purely civil
or commercial arrangements, operating what legal doctrine
has identied as a form of evasion of labour law protections
(Aloisi & De Stefano, 2022). The worker’s apparent freedom
to choose working hours has become the ideal corporate veil
for avoiding compliance with social security obligations,
minimum wage standards and coverage for occupational
risks (International Labour Organization, 2021).
The scientic problem addressed in this study lies in an
even more complex and less explored dimension: the erosion
of the collective dimension of labour resulting from the ato-
misation of the workforce. In the absence of a shared phys-
ical workplace, workers engaged through digital platforms
experience profound socio-legal isolation (Singh & Singh,
2025). Algorithmic management fragments interpersonal re-
lationships, undermines workers’ perception of themselves
as members of a collective workforce and, by technologi-
cal design, weakens the traditional mechanisms of collec-
tive labour action, including workplace assemblies, strikes
and formal collective bargaining (Ucheagwu-Okoye, 2026).
Furthermore, capital has undergone an asymmetric process
of deterritorialisation; technology corporations can manage,
in real time and through opaque task-allocation algorithms,
the labour of thousands of workers located across multiple
jurisdictions while relying on the absence of a physical local
presence to limit the eectiveness of labour inspections and
national judicial oversight (International Labour Organiza-
tion, 2021).
The justication for this research stems from the urgent
need to update labour law doctrine and the interpretative
tools available to legislators and courts. The challenge
is not merely to t emerging forms of work into outdated
contractual categories, but rather to develop a coherent le-
gal conceptualisation of algorithmic subordination as a new
expression of managerial authority (Raso, 2025). The rele-
vance of this analysis is further reinforced by the adoption of
Directive (EU) 2024/2831 on improving working conditions
in platform work, whose potential inuence on Ibero-Amer-
ican legal systems deserves systematic and forward-looking
examination. In particular, the Directive introduces unprece-
dented safeguards regarding algorithmic management, trans-
parency and human oversight of automated decision-mak-
ing, providing a regulatory benchmark for the evolution of
labour law beyond the European Union. In this context, the
right to algorithmic explanation emerges as an essential and
non-waivable guarantee for the eective protection of work-
ers’ collective rights (Directive (EU) 2024/2831, 2024; The
Ibero-American Association for the Development of Applied
Sciences [AIDCA], 2024).
Methodology
This study adopted a qualitative approach, as it was aimed
at analysing and interpreting legal institutions related to la-
bour subordination within the platform economy. The me-
thodological design was based on a doctrinal legal approach,
supported by documentary analysis and the comparative le-
gal method, with the objective of examining the evolution of
labour subordination in the context of algorithmic manage-
ment and assessing the regulatory responses adopted across
dierent legal systems.
The doctrinal legal method was employed to examine the
evolution of the traditional categories of Labour Law, parti-
cularly the concept of legal subordination, through the sys-
tematic analysis of legislation, legal doctrine and specialised
case law. Documentary analysis facilitated the critical review
of national and international legal instruments, scientic li-
terature and technical reports concerning platform work and
the use of articial intelligence systems in the management
of employment relationships.
In addition, the comparative legal method was applied, ta-
king Directive (EU) 2024/2831 of the European Parliament
and of the Council as the principal point of reference, given
that it represents the most recent regulatory instrument go-
verning platform work. Its provisions were compared with
the legislative and jurisprudential developments of several
J. Law Epistemic Stud. (2026) 4: e175
Ibero-American jurisdictions, particularly Spain, Brazil,
Colombia, Argentina and Ecuador, in order to identify regu-
latory convergences, divergences and potential criteria for
legal reception within Latin American legal systems.
The documentary corpus comprised current national and
international legislation, judicial decisions issued by domes-
tic courts, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU)
and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR),
technical reports produced by the International Labour Or-
ganization (ILO) and the Economic Commission for Latin
America and the Caribbean (ECLAC), together with scien-
tic articles and scholarly monographs published between
2020 and 2025 in journals indexed in Scopus and the Web
of Science Core Collection. The sources were selected ac-
cording to criteria of timeliness, scientic quality, thematic
relevance and their direct relationship with algorithmic su-
bordination, platform work and the protection of collective
labour rights.
The collected information was analysed through a func-
tional comparative legal approach, identifying the common
elements and regulatory dierences among the selected ju-
risdictions regarding algorithmic management, the legal pre-
sumption of employment, transparency in automated deci-
sion-making systems and the protection of collective labour
rights. Finally, the ndings were interpreted in light of the
fundamental principles of Labour Law and international hu-
man rights standards applicable to labour relations, with the
aim of proposing a doctrinal framework that conceptualises
algorithmic subordination as the contemporary evolution of
classical legal subordination.
Results and discussion
The doctrinal and comparative analysis of specialised legal
scholarship, recent case law and Directive (EU) 2024/2831
reveals a substantial transformation of the classical concept
of legal subordination within the platform economy. Rather
than disappearing, labour dependence has been recongured
through technological mechanisms that replace the employ-
er’s direct supervision with automated systems of manage-
ment, performance evaluation and behavioural control. This
nding demonstrates that the exercise of managerial author-
ity retains its legal essence, although it is now materialised
through algorithms and automated processes operating con-
tinuously and, in many cases, opaquely.
Based on the analysis of the selected legal sources, algo-
rithmic subordination is proposed as the legal situation in
which workers remain subject to the employer’s powers of
organisation, direction, supervision and disciplinary control
through articial intelligence systems, task-allocation algo-
rithms and data-driven management tools such as People
Analytics, without the need for continuous human super-
vision. Consequently, labour dependence is no longer ex-
pressed through direct managerial instructions but through
mathematical parameters that determine workers’ access to
tasks, remuneration, continuity on the platform and perfor-
mance evaluation.
This interpretation is consistent with the analyses devel-
oped by Goldin (2020), the European Commission (2023),
and Aloisi and De Stefano (2022), who argue that technolog-
ical infrastructure has become the new organisational centre
of the contemporary enterprise. Although digital platforms
maintain that workers preserve their autonomy by providing
their own means of production—such as vehicles, motorcy-
cles or computer equipment—the present analysis demon-
strates that the decisive element in determining the exis-
tence of an employment relationship lies in the platform’s
exclusive control over customer allocation, pricing policies,
reputation systems and the strategic information generated
through algorithmic management.
Furthermore, the comparative review demonstrates that
managerial authority is increasingly exercised through auto-
mated decision-making systems capable of allocating tasks,
establishing priorities, modifying economic incentives and
imposing sanctions without direct human intervention. Vari-
ables such as task acceptance rates, response times, geoloca-
tion data and customer ratings are automatically processed to
determine workers’ continuity on the platform and the condi-
tions under which services are performed. Consequently, the
worker’s apparent freedom to accept or reject assignments
becomes progressively constrained by invisible systems of
incentives and penalties that substantially reduce genuine
autonomy in decision-making.
A particularly signicant nding concerns the phenom-
enon of algorithmic dismissal, whereby workers’ accounts
are automatically deactivated once predened performance
indicators fail to satisfy algorithmic thresholds established
by the platform. Unlike traditional forms of employment ter-
mination, these decisions are frequently implemented with-
out individual reasoning, prior hearing or meaningful oppor-
tunities for human review. Such practices raise signicant
concerns regarding procedural fairness, eective judicial
protection and the fundamental right to due process, particu-
larly when algorithmic decisions remain opaque and cannot
be adequately challenged by aected workers.
Consequently, the ndings support the conclusion that
algorithmic subordination represents a functional evolu-
tion of classical legal subordination rather than an entirely
new legal category. What has changed is not the existence
of managerial authority itself, but the technological means
through which that authority is exercised. This transforma-
tion requires a reinterpretation of the traditional criteria for
determining the existence of an employment relationship,
placing greater emphasis on the eective control exercised
by the digital platform than on the contractual label formally
J. Law Epistemic Stud. (2026) 4: e175
assigned to service providers.
The analysis of international legal instruments, specialised
scholarship and recent developments in comparative case
law demonstrates that the expansion of the platform econo-
my has profoundly transformed the conditions under which
workers exercise their collective labour rights. Unlike the
traditional industrial model, characterised by the physical
concentration of workers within a common workplace, dig-
ital platforms organise labour through decentralised struc-
tures that signicantly hinder continuous interaction among
individuals providing services for the same economic opera-
tor. As a result, the construction of collective representation
faces substantially greater obstacles than those encountered
in conventional employment relationships.
The literature review indicates that this phenomenon has
been described as a process of labour atomisation, where-
by workers perform their activities individually, across geo-
graphically dispersed locations and under exclusively digital
coordination mechanisms. Under these conditions, opportu-
nities to develop a shared collective identity, promote trade
union organisation or engage in traditional forms of collective
bargaining are considerably reduced, as the physical spaces
that historically facilitated communication, deliberation and
collective mobilisation have eectively disappeared.
These ndings are consistent with the analyses of Zhang
et al. (2025) and Ucheagwu-Okoye (2026), who argue that
algorithmic management not only reorganises produc-
tion processes but also reshapes the social relationships
that underpin freedom of association and collective labour
rights. In this context, algorithms cease to function merely
as task-allocation tools and instead become mechanisms of
managerial control that continuously individualise workers’
performance, thereby hindering the development of common
interests and collective solidarity.
At the same time, the comparative analysis identies a
second phenomenon of particular signicance: the deterrito-
rialisation of digital capital. Major digital platforms operate
through complex transnational corporate structures that sep-
arate the location where services are performed, the com-
pany’s legal domicile and the jurisdiction in which strate-
gic business decisions are made. This organisational model
complicates the determination of the applicable law, restricts
the regulatory powers of national authorities and creates sig-
nicant challenges for the eective protection of collective
labour rights.
The review of reports issued by the International Labour
Organization (ILO) together with recent legal scholarship
demonstrates that this organisational fragmentation contrib-
utes to signicant regulatory asymmetries across dierent
legal systems. While some jurisdictions have introduced
specic legal mechanisms to oversee algorithmic manage-
ment and strengthen the collective rights of platform work-
ers, many others still lack regulatory instruments capable
of addressing these emerging forms of work organisation.
Consequently, the eectiveness of freedom of association
and collective bargaining depends largely on the institutional
capacity and regulatory development of each national legal
system.
From a comparative legal perspective, these ndings sug-
gest that the digital transformation of work requires a recon-
sideration of the traditional legal categories through which
collective labour rights have historically been protected. The
disappearance of a shared physical workplace does not elim-
inate workers’ common interests; rather, it necessitates the
development of new forms of collective representation com-
patible with digitally mediated work environments. Accord-
ingly, one of the principal challenges facing contemporary
Labour Law is to adapt its traditional institutions of collec-
tive protection to business models characterised by algorith-
mic management, geographical dispersion and the intensive
use of articial intelligence technologies.
The review of specialised literature and recent experiences
across dierent jurisdictions reveals the emergence of new
forms of collective organisation initiated by platform work-
ers themselves. The ndings demonstrate that, in response to
the limitations of traditional trade union representation with-
in highly digitalised work environments, alternative forms
of collective action have progressively emerged. These new
strategies rely on the intensive use of digital technologies
and the strategic appropriation of the information generated
during the performance of work activities, enabling workers
to develop innovative mechanisms for collective represen-
tation and advocacy despite the absence of conventional or-
ganisational structures.
This translation employs the terminology commonly used
in leading international Labour Law journals (e.g., Labour
Law, freedom of association, collective labour rights, algo-
rithmic management, trade union organisation, collective
bargaining, and deterritorialisation of capital), while main-
taining an academic style appropriate for high-impact pub-
lications such as the Industrial Law Journal, the European
Labour Law Journal, and the International Labour Review.
This phenomenon, identied in the literature as Unionism
4.0, represents an evolution rather than a rupture of tradition-
al forms of trade union organisation. Its dening characteris-
tic lies in shifting collective action from the physical work-
place to digital environments, making use of collaborative
platforms, digital applications and encrypted communication
channels to coordinate collective initiatives, exchange infor-
mation and strengthen the representation of geographically
dispersed workers.
The comparative analysis demonstrates that one of the
J. Law Epistemic Stud. (2026) 4: e175
most signicant instruments of this emerging form of col-
lective organisation is data activism. Unlike the traditional
model, in which collective bargaining largely relied on infor-
mation provided by employers, data activism enables work-
ers themselves to collect, share and collaboratively analyse
the information generated by digital platforms throughout
the performance of their work. Through open-source appli-
cations and independent digital repositories, workers can
build collective databases that facilitate the identication of
task-allocation patterns, pricing adjustments, wage dieren-
tials and potential discriminatory practices arising from al-
gorithmic management.
These ndings are consistent with the analyses of Ucheag-
wu-Okoye (2026) and Farronato (2025), who argue that
collective access to information constitutes one of the most
eective mechanisms for reducing the informational asym-
metry between digital platforms and workers. From this per-
spective, data cease to function solely as a corporate resource
and instead become an instrument of social accountability
capable of promoting transparency, strengthening the judi-
cial protection of labour rights and improving the eective-
ness of collective bargaining.
Furthermore, the documentary review demonstrates that
traditional forms of collective labour conict have also un-
dergone signicant transformation. Instead of simultaneous
work stoppages at a shared physical workplace, recent in-
ternational experiences reveal the growing use of coordinat-
ed digital log-os, online campaigns and collective actions
organised through instant messaging applications and social
media platforms. These strategies seek to temporarily disrupt
algorithmic task-allocation patterns during periods of peak
demand, thereby creating incentives for digital platforms to
engage in meaningful collective bargaining with workers’
representatives.
However, the analysis also identies signicant limitations
to the consolidation of these emerging forms of collective
representation. The absence of specic legal recognition,
regulatory disparities across jurisdictions, high workforce
turnover and the opacity of algorithmic management sys-
tems continue to hinder the eective exercise of freedom
of association within the platform economy. Consequently,
Unionism 4.0 should not be understood as a substitute for
traditional trade unions, but rather as a process of institution-
al adaptation aimed at preserving the fundamental principles
of Collective Labour Law in a context increasingly charac-
terised by the digitalisation of employment relationships.
Within this context, the ndings suggest that the future ef-
fectiveness of collective action will depend largely on the
capacity of legal systems to recognise access to algorithmic
information as an essential precondition for the eective ex-
ercise of freedom of association, collective bargaining and
the protection of workers’ fundamental rights.
The comparative analysis of European legislation and
recent judicial developments identies the adoption of Di-
rective (EU) 2024/2831 as one of the most signicant reg-
ulatory developments concerning platform work in recent
years. The ndings indicate that this instrument represents a
genuine paradigm shift in labour regulation by explicitly rec-
ognising that algorithmic management constitutes an expres-
sion of managerial authority and must therefore be subject to
legal safeguards compatible with the protection of workers’
fundamental rights (Baylos, 2024).
The examination of the Directive reveals two innovations
of particular legal signicance. First, it establishes a legal
presumption of an employment relationship where specif-
ic indicators of control exercised by a digital platform are
present, thereby partially shifting the burden of proof to the
platform operator. This reform constitutes a legislative re-
sponse to the growing use of self-employment arrangements
designed to disguise relationships that, in practice, display
the essential characteristics of economic and organisational
subordination.
Second, the Directive introduces a comprehensive set of
safeguards concerning algorithmic management, including
workers’ right to receive meaningful information regarding
automated decision-making systems aecting their working
conditions, the requirement of human oversight for certain
automated decisions, and the reinforcement of workers’ rep-
resentatives’ rights to information and consultation. These
provisions reect a signicant evolution of European Labour
Law by extending traditional mechanisms of collective pro-
tection to decision-making processes based on articial in-
telligence (Directive (EU) 2024/2831, 2024).
From this perspective, the Directive represents not merely
a new regulatory instrument but a profound transformation
in the conception of managerial authority, recognising that
algorithmic control must remain subject to the fundamen-
tal principles of Labour Law and the protection of workers’
rights (Baylos, 2024).
A comparison with Ibero-American legal systems re-
veals an uneven pattern of regulatory development. While
Spain has adopted signicant legislative reforms concerning
platform work and algorithmic management, several Latin
American jurisdictions have relied primarily on judicial in-
terpretation to determine the employment status of platform
workers and the legal consequences of algorithmic control.
Nevertheless, specic regulation concerning algorithmic
transparency, human oversight of automated decision-mak-
ing and the protection of collective labour rights remains
limited across much of Latin America (Aloisi & De Stefano,
2022; European Commission, 2023; Eurofound, 2025).
The Spanish experience illustrates the progressive tran-
sition from judicial recognition of algorithmic subordina-
tion to comprehensive legislative regulation. In particular,
J. Law Epistemic Stud. (2026) 4: e175
Judgment No. 805/2020 (Supreme Court of Spain, Social
Chamber, September 25, 2020) recognised that algorithmic
management may constitute a manifestation of managerial
authority sucient to establish the existence of an employ-
ment relationship, a position that subsequently inuenced
both the adoption of the Spanish Rider Law and the devel-
opment of the European regulatory framework governing
platform work (Spanish Supreme Court, 2020, Raso, 2025)
In the Ecuadorian context, the analysis reveals the absence
of a specic regulatory framework governing platform work
and algorithmic management of employment. Although the
Constitution recognises fundamental principles such as the
protection of labour, equality, legal certainty and the right
to due process, the Labour Code does not establish legal cri-
teria for determining the existence of subordination when
managerial authority is exercised through algorithms or au-
tomated decision-making systems. This regulatory gap cre-
ates signicant interpretative challenges for courts, labour
authorities and legal practitioners responsible for resolving
disputes arising from these emerging forms of work organ-
isation.
From a comparative legal perspective, the ndings indi-
cate that the European experience constitutes an important
point of reference for the future development of Labour
Law in Latin America. However, its reception cannot be
achieved through the mere transplantation of European le-
gal rules. Dierences in labour market structures, levels of
informality, the institutional capacity of labour inspectorates
and the particular characteristics of national legal systems
require context-sensitive regulatory adaptations capable of
responding to the economic and social realities of each ju-
risdiction. Consequently, the incorporation of standards gov-
erning algorithmic transparency should be harmonised with
the constitutional principles of each legal system and with
the international obligations arising from the conventions of
the International Labour Organization (ILO).
Within this context, the analysis demonstrates that the
principal contribution of Directive (EU) 2024/2831 extends
beyond the regulation of platform work itself. Its greatest
signicance lies in redening the contemporary concept of
labour subordination by expressly recognising that mana-
gerial control may be exercised through automated systems
and algorithmic decision-making. In doing so, the Directive
provides interpretative criteria capable of guiding the evolu-
tion of Ibero-American legal systems in addressing the chal-
lenges posed by the digital transformation of work.
Conclusions
Legal subordination has neither weakened nor disappea-
red within the platform economy. Instead, it has undergone
a qualitative transformation into algorithmic subordination,
a contemporary manifestation of managerial authority cha-
racterised by decentralised, continuous and often invisible
mechanisms of control. Rather than direct personal super-
vision, managerial power is increasingly exercised through
algorithmic programming and data-driven organisational
architectures, calling into question the adequacy of the tradi-
tional legal criteria historically used to identify employment
relationships.
The traditional Fordist model of collective action has be-
come progressively less eective in responding to corpora-
te strategies based on the deterritorialisation of capital and
the fragmentation of the workforce. Nevertheless, workers’
collective resistance has evolved through the emergence of
Unionism 4.0 and data activism, demonstrating that the co-
llective appropriation of digital technologies and algorithmic
information constitutes one of the most eective strategies
for reducing the informational asymmetry that characterises
platform work and algorithmic management.
The ndings support the initial research hypothesis by de-
monstrating that algorithmic transparency and the right to
an explanation of automated decision-making are emerging
as fundamental guarantees for the eective protection of
collective labour rights in the twenty-rst century. Without
meaningful legal and institutional mechanisms enabling
workers and their representatives to understand, scrutinise
and challenge the articial intelligence systems that govern
access to work, remuneration and employment continuity,
the protective function of Labour Law risks becoming in-
eective. Ensuring transparency, accountability and human
oversight of algorithmic decision-making is therefore essen-
tial to safeguarding workers’ dignity, guaranteeing eective
judicial protection and preserving the rule of law within in-
creasingly digitalised labour markets.
This study adopted a doctrinal and comparative legal
approach based on documentary analysis. Accordingly, its
ndings are limited to the interpretation of legal provisions,
scholarly literature and judicial decisions concerning algo-
rithmic management and platform work. Future research
should incorporate empirical methodologies to examine the
practical operation of algorithmic management systems in
digital labour platforms, assess the eectiveness of emerging
regulatory frameworks across dierent Latin American juris-
dictions, and evaluate their impact on workers’ fundamental
and collective labour rights.
References
Aloisi, A., & De Stefano, V. (2022). Your Boss Is an Algorithm:
Articial Intelligence, Platform Work and Labour. Hart
Publishing. https://ssrn.com/abstract=4139319
Arias, P. (2025). La privacidad en el ámbito laboral en Chile:
La carencia de protección para los datos biométricos
[Tesis de pregrado, Universidad de Chile]. Repositorio
J. Law Epistemic Stud. (2026) 4: e175
Institucional de la Universidad de Chile. https://doi.
org/10.58011/3qk0-qe30
Asociación Iberoamericana para el Desarrollo de las
Ciencias Aplicadas. (2024). Memoria del V Con-
greso Internacional de Derecho. https://aidca.
org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/2023_MEMO-
RIA-DEL-V-CONGRESO-INTERNACION-
AL-DE-DERE_240305_204257_compressed-1.pdf
Baylos, A. (2024). La Directiva europea sobre el trabajo en
plataformas: Un cambio de paradigma para el derecho
del trabajo global. Revista de Derecho Social, 103,
15–42. https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codi-
go=9606629
Eurofound. (2025). Platform work: Algorithmic manage-
ment. Publications Oce of the European Union.
https://www.eurofound.europa.eu/en/publications/all/
platform-work-algorithmic-management
European Commission. (2023). Study to Support the Impact
Assessment of an EU Initiative on Improving the Work-
ing Conditions in Platform Work. Publications Oce of
the European Union.
European Parliament and Council of the European Union.
(2024). Directive (EU) 2024/2831 of the European Par-
liament and of the Council of 23 October 2024 on im-
proving working conditions in platform work. Ocial
Journal of the European Union, L 2024/2831. https://
eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2024/2831/oj
Farronato, C. (2025). Digital platforms as information ag-
gregators: Implications for their design and regulation.
Cambridge Handbook on Digital Platforms. https://con-
ference.nber.org/confer/2025/DTs25/farronato.pdf
Goldin, A. (2020). Los trabajadores de plataforma y su reg-
ulación en la Argentina. Comisión Económica para
América Latina y el Caribe (CEPAL). https://www.ce-
pal.org/es/publicaciones/45614-trabajadores-platafor-
ma-su-regulacion-la-argentina
International Labour Organization. (2021). Perspectivas so-
ciales y del empleo en el mundo 2021: El papel de las
plataformas digitales en la transformación del mundo
del trabajo. Organización Internacional del Trabajo.
https://www.ilo.org/es/publications/agship-reports/el-
papel-de-las-plataformas-digitales-en-la-transformaci-
on-del-mundo-del.
Raso, J. (2025). Ética, inteligencia articial y trabajo. En
A. A. Sánchez Bravo & L. L. Pilau Sobrinho (Dirs.),
Estudios sobre ética e inteligencia articial (pp. 171–
182). https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codi-
go=10285104
Singh, A., & Singh, T. (2025, December). The Impact of
COVID-19 on Digital Education: A Socio-Legal and
Human Rights Perspective. In Proceedings of the In-
ternational Conference on Law and Technology (ICLT
2025) (p. 263). Springer Nature.
Sosnick, M. (2024). Caremark Claims for Workers’ Rights:
Repeated Unfair Labor Practices as a Breach of Fidu-
ciary Duty. Colum. JL & Soc. Probs., 58, 525.
Spanish Supreme Court. (2020, September 25). Judgment
No. 805/2020 (Rec. No. 4746/2019) (Glovo case).
https://www.poderjudicial.es
Ucheagwu-Okoye, O. M. (2026). Prospects of collective
bargaining in Nigeria in the 21st Century. Interna-
tional Journal of Jurisprudence, School Management
and Civic Education, 1(1). https://unilaws.org/INTER-
JACE/article/view/352
Zhang, M. M., Cooke, F. L., Ahlstrom, D., & McNeil, N.
(2025). The rise of algorithmic management and im-
plications for work and organisations. New Technolo-
gy, Work and Employment, 40(3), 659-671. https://doi.
org/10.1111/ntwe.12343
Conicts of interest
The author declares that she has no conicts of interest.
Author contributions
Digna Z. Gorozabel-Lucas: Conceptualization, data cura-
tion, formal analysis, investigation, methodology, supervi-
sion, validation, visualization, drafting the original manus-
cript 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 author acknowledges 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.
