Platform work has been a major issue in recent years, not only at the European but also at the national level, particularly due to the widespread and ongoing expansion of the market for services that fall under the digital platform model.
General
Platform work refers to an employment model in which work is organized through a digital interface—typically a mobile app or an online platform—and in which automated systems play a significant role, for example in assigning jobs, evaluating workers, or determining access to work. Typical examples include transportation and delivery platforms such as Rohlík, Košík, Uber, Bolt, or Foodora.
Legislative Situation and EU Law
At the end of March, the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs submitted a new draft law on platform work and on amendments to related laws (hereinafter as the “Draft”)[1], the aim of which is to transpose (EU) 2024/2831 of the European Parliament and Council of 23 October 2024 on improving working conditions for platform workers (hereinafter as the “Directive”).
The purpose of the Directive is to improve working conditions for workers of digital labour platforms and to ensure the protection of personal data in platform work for all platform workers—that is, not only for workers but also for other individuals, particularly the self-employed.
The Draft was prepared in cooperation with other ministries and the Office for Personal Data Protection, and according to the explanatory memorandum, a compromise solution was sought during its preparation through a minimalist transposition of the Directive.
This is already the second attempt at systematic Czech legislation on platform work. However, earlier drafts prepared for the transposition of the Platform Work Directive were criticized primarily by experts as overly complicated and completely detached from the reality of how the labour market functions. There was also strong concern that the new legislation would not stifle the flexibility that is both typical of and essential for platform work, and that it would not close the door to the legal performance of activities under the self-employed regime where the work is not actually dependent. This is one reason why the current Draft is presented as more balanced and “minimalist”—that is, as an attempt to find a reasonable middle ground between protecting platform workers, preserving contractual flexibility, and preventing the circumvention of labour laws through the so-called “schwarz-system”.
It should therefore be emphasized that the stated goal of the new legislation is not to ban platform work or to universally reclassify all platform workers as workers, but rather to establish rules for situations where work is performed under a regime that is formally designated as self-employment but, in substance, may meet the criteria of dependent employment.
What is the new law intended to regulate?
The Draft is conceived as a new law on platform work, but it also affects other legal regulations. In addition to regulating platform work itself, it provides for amendments to the Labour Code, the Employment Act, the Civil Procedure Code, the Act on the Residence of Foreigners in the Czech Republic, the Labour Inspection Act, the Whistleblower Protection Act, and the Act on the Employer’s Unified Monthly Report.
The Draft defines basic terms for the field of platform work, establishes the legal definition of an employment relationship, sets rules for the use of automated systems, expands the information obligations of platforms, and simultaneously amends certain general institutions of labour law and employment law, particularly the definition of dependent work and the regulation of undeclared work.
Definition of Key Terms
The Draft introduces several new terms, the key ones being platform, platform work, platform worker, platform worker, intermediary, and automated systems.
A platform is defined as a person providing a service that is at least partially provided remotely via electronic means, typically through a website or mobile application; it is provided at the request of the service recipient; it includes, as an essential and fundamental component, the organization of work performed by natural persons for remuneration; and it simultaneously involves the use of automated systems. Crucially, the Draft explicitly covers both work performed online and work performed at a specific location.
Platform work is then defined as work ensuring the provision of a service by a platform, and a platform worker is any natural person who performs platform work, regardless of the nature of the contractual relationship or its designation by the contracting parties.
A platform worker is a platform worker in a basic employment relationship with the platform or with an intermediary, and the term “intermediary” refers to a person who, for the purpose of making platform work available, enters into a contract with the platform and simultaneously enters into a contract with the platform worker, or is part of the contractual chain between the platform and the platform worker. This definition alone reflects an effort to capture even more complex multi-party business models in which the platform does not always act directly as the worker’s second contracting party.
Automated system is defined as an automated monitoring system and an automated decision-making system. These are systems that monitor, evaluate, and record aspects of platform work performance and, at the same time, can use this data to make or co-determine decisions that affect the status of the platform worker. It is precisely the significance of these systems for the organization of work that is one of the reasons why the Draft devotes separate attention to them and why it links their use to specific rules on transparency, human oversight, and review.
Rebuttable Legal Presumption of a Basic Employment Relationship
Probably the most debated part of the Draft is the introduction of a rebuttable legal presumption of a basic employment relationship.[2] According to this provision, a platform worker is presumed to be in a basic employment relationship with the platform or the intermediary if there are facts that reasonably indicate that the characteristics of dependent work under Section 2(1) of the Labour Code have been met, unless the platform or the intermediary proves that at least one characteristic of dependent work has not been met.
On the one hand, this is an institution intended to facilitate the protection of persons who, although formally acting as self-employed individuals or as contractual partners under another civil law regime, in fact perform dependent work. On the other hand, however, the Draft does not take the path of automatically reclassifying all relationships as employment relationships. The presumption is rebuttable, which means that the platform or intermediary may, in a specific case, prove that at least one characteristic of dependent work is not met. It is precisely here that the effort to strike a balance is evident—the Draft does not stipulate that every platform worker is automatically a worker, while simultaneously providing workers and supervisory authorities with a significantly stronger tool to review those relationships that merely formally resemble self-employment but are in fact dependent work.
From a practical standpoint, if the Draft is approved in its current form, this will be one of the most significant changes. If the legal presumption is actually applied, the burden of proof will shift to the platform or intermediary, who will have to be able to credibly demonstrate how their model does not meet the criteria for dependent work.
Amendment to the Definition of Dependent Work in the Labour Code
Closely related to the amendment of the rebuttable legal presumption is another significant change, namely the redefinition of dependent work under the Labour Code.
The definition will be systematically restructured to more clearly delineate the relationship of the employer’s authority and the worker’s subordination, as well as other essential characteristics of dependent work.
According to the proposed wording of Section 2(1), dependent work is work performed within a relationship of the employer’s authority and the workers’s subordination and on behalf of the employer.
Paragraph 2 then newly explains that a relationship of employer-worker subordination is a situation where the employer organizes the work, supervises its performance, and the worker performs the work according to the employer’s instructions during working hours.
The proposed provision of Section 2a further stipulates that dependent work must be performed by the worker for the employer in person, for a wage, salary, or remuneration for work, at the employer’s expense and under the employer’s responsibility, and at the employer’s workplace or, where applicable, at another agreed-upon location.
This change will undoubtedly have significant impacts beyond the realm of platform work, as it constitutes an intervention in the general regulation of dependent work. In the future, it may influence the assessment not only of relationships within delivery or transportation apps (which the Draft primarily targets) but also a whole range of other atypical or borderline models of collaboration in the market. We will address the change in the definition of dependent work, the context of the proposed amendment, and its practical implications in more detail in the second part of this article.
From the employers’ perspective, therefore, this will not merely be a matter of “platform compliance”, but generally a question of whether existing models of cooperation correspond to the substantive characteristics of dependent work as they will be newly defined and subsequently interpreted in practice.
Automated Systems and Personal Data Protection
Another key area of the Draft is the regulation of automated systems, the use of which is typical of platform work. Platforms often use algorithmic tools to organize work, monitor workers’ activity, evaluate their performance, assign tasks, or decide whether to restrict or terminate access to the platform.
The Draft therefore introduces restrictions on the processing of personal data using automated systems, requirements for transparency in their use, and rules for human oversight and review.
Information Obligations and Records
The Draft further introduces an obligation for platforms to make information on platform work available to competent authorities and worker representatives.
This is also linked to changes regarding the employer’s unified monthly report. A new entry enabling the identification of digital work platforms is to be introduced in the employer registry. At the same time, it is anticipated that labour inspection authorities will also have access to the relevant data. The practical significance lies in the fact that supervisory authorities will be able to more effectively determine which entities in the market operate as digital labour platforms and to which of them the new legislation applies.
Illegal and Undeclared Work
The Draft also introduces significant changes to the Employment Act. It redefines illegal work and expands the concept of undeclared work. At the same time, it establishes an irrebuttable legal presumption of an employment relationship in the event of an offense consisting of facilitating the performance of undeclared work.
While the Draft works with a rebuttable legal presumption in the case of platform work, it establishes an irrebuttable legal presumption in the case of facilitating unreported work. If the elements of the relevant offense are met, it will be presumed that the persons concerned were in an employment relationship at the time the offense was committed.
New Elements of Administrative Offenses
These new obligations are accompanied by new elements of administrative offenses designed to ensure that digital labour platforms and intermediaries can be held accountable for violations of the obligations that will now apply to them. In this regard as well, the role of labour inspection authorities is expected to grow in importance.
Procedural protection for platform workers
The changes also extend to procedural rules. Among other things, the Draft proposes strengthening the protection of platform workers in situations where their contract would be terminated because they lawfully asserted their rights under the new legislation. In such cases, the defendant would be required to prove that the contractual relationship was terminated for a different reason.
Proposed Effective Date
The bill is proposed to take effect on December 1, 2026, immediately before the expiration of the Directive’s transposition deadline, which ends on December 2, 2026. An exception is to be made for provisions concerning the registration of platforms, for which, for technical reasons, effectiveness is proposed only as of January 1, 2027.
Current administrative court case law confirms the trend
Recent case law of administrative courts has been moving in the same direction as the proposed Draft, namely toward a rigorous assessment of the actual (substantive) content of relationships regardless of their formal contractual framework, as can be observed, for example, in the judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court dated December 8, 2025, Case No. 22 Ads 168/2025, in which the court assessed the status of couriers cooperating with an e-shop operator on the basis of commercial contracts. Following the conclusions of the labour inspection authorities and the Municipal Court in Prague, it concluded that the activity in question was, in fact, the performance of dependent work outside an employment relationship.
From the perspective of the reasoning, it is crucial that the Supreme Administrative Court emphasized precisely those principles upon which the Draft itself is based. It stressed that what is decisive is the actual manner in which the work is performed, not its formal designation in the contract. If the characteristics of dependent work are met, labour law regulation cannot be circumvented merely by choosing a commercial law model. This approach also aligns with the concept of a rebuttable legal presumption, which is intended to capture such situations and facilitate their assessment.
At the same time, the Supreme Administrative Court confirmed that formal elements of flexibility—such as the ability to refuse orders, collaborate with multiple entities, or use subcontractors—are not decisive in and of themselves. What matters is how the relationship functions in practice and whether it exhibits characteristics of subordination and superiority. Here, too, there is clear alignment with the Draft, which is based precisely on the substantive definition of dependent work.
Conclusion
The new Draft on platform work represents a significant step in regulating the digital economy in the Czech Republic. Its aim is not only to fulfill the obligation to transpose European legislation but also to establish rules for an area where the existing legal framework is coming up against new ways of organizing work. The Draft seeks to strike a balance between protecting workers, preserving the flexibility of platform work, and preventing the circumvention of labour laws.
The most significant changes include the introduction of a rebuttable legal presumption of a basic employment relationship, a more precise definition of dependent work, regulations on the use of automated systems, strengthened information and record-keeping obligations, and stricter consequences for violations of rules regarding undeclared work. The new law will thus not only affect a narrow circle of digital platforms but will also significantly influence broader employer practices and the interpretation of “borderline” forms of employment relationships in general.
It will therefore be important for affected entities to assess in a timely manner whether their cooperation model complies with the proposed legislation and, if necessary, to amend contractual documentation, records, and internal processes to meet the new requirements.
If you have any questions regarding platform work or labour law in general, please do not hesitate to contact us.
[1] The Draft, including related supporting documentation, is available at this link.
[2] This concept is regulated in Section 9(1) of the Draft.
Mgr. Jakub Málek, managing partner – malek@plegal.cz
Ráchel Kouklíková, lawyer – kouklikova@plegal.cz
Anna Němcová, legal assistant – nemcova@plegal.cz
30. 4. 2026