The EU Platform Work Directive only covers apps, but the rule at its heart is already spreading to ordinary contractors. If a platform directs and controls the work, the worker is presumed to be an employee, and it's the platform that has to prove they aren't. Every EU country must write that into its own law by 2 December 2026. As of 15 September 2026, none of the 27 has done it in full: twelve have a bill or a draft on the table, and ten haven't published anything at all.
So you'd be forgiven for filing it under next year's problem, and a problem for the delivery apps. Frankly, it's neither.
Does the Platform Work Directive apply to my contractors?
Not directly. The Directive covers digital labour platforms: the apps that hand out rides, deliveries and gig work. A developer in Lisbon on a contractor agreement with a software company isn't in scope. The idea inside the Directive is, though, and that's the part worth your attention.
Not who's right. Who has to prove it.
For years a contractor agreement worked like a signed alibi. The contract said "independent", and if the worker wanted to argue otherwise, the job of proving it sat with them. The Directive flips that for platform workers. What almost nobody is saying out loud is that the same flip has already happened, one country at a time, and a lot of it has nothing to do with apps.
The presumption of employment is already law in five EU countries
Five EU countries already presume some platform workers are employees. Spain did it for delivery riders in 2021. Belgium followed on 1 January 2023, with eight tests of control. Portugal brought in its own version in 2023. Croatia wrote one into its Labour Act from 1 January 2024, and Italy added one for riders on 1 May 2026. None of them waited for the deadline.
The drafts go further. The Netherlands wants anyone who ticks two of five signs of control treated as an employee unless the company proves otherwise. Czechia's government sent its bill to parliament on 8 September. Estonia's went in on 14 September. Slovakia's second reading is on 18 September. Busy fortnight, right? Not that anyone follows the Slovak parliamentary calendar for fun. I do, which probably says more about me than about Slovakia.
The same shift is happening outside the EU
Australia, the US and the UK have all moved the same way, and none of it is about apps. Australia changed its test on 26 August 2024: what counts now is the practical reality of the relationship, not what the contract says. In the US, 26 of the 51 jurisdictions use an ABC test for at least some purposes, where a worker is an employee unless the business can prove all three conditions. California's AB5 is the famous one. In the UK, IR35 puts the status call on medium and large clients, not on the contractor.
Different continents, different legal systems, one direction of travel. The paperwork counts for less every year. What actually happens day to day counts for more.
It's a bit like registering your car as a bicycle. For a long time nobody checked the registration. Now they're counting the wheels.
Which companies are most exposed?
Ordinary employers with long-running contractors abroad are more exposed than the platforms, which have lawyers, lobbyists and years of warning. The business I worry about is the 60-person software company with a developer in Lisbon, a designer in Kraków and a salesperson in Madrid. All on rolling contractor agreements. All working full weeks on company laptops. All reporting to the same head of product. Ask the questions these laws ask, who controls the work, whose tools they use, who carries the risk if it goes wrong, and you don't get the answer the contract gives you.
The cost of getting it wrong isn't a one-off, you know. Every month a misclassified contractor stays that way is another month of employer tax, holiday pay and notice rights that someone may one day ask you to pay back, because reclassification can reach back in time. It builds quietly, kind of like interest, and it tends to get noticed at the worst possible moment: a dispute, an audit, or a buyer's due diligence.
Why the contractor setup survives
The contractor setup survives because it's the cheapest thing to sell and the easiest thing to buy. A contractor platform can get someone working in a day for a fraction of what employing them costs, and the model rewards volume. Nobody in that chain is paid to ask whether the person should really be an employee. Not the platform. Not the finance team saving on employer costs. And not us either, which is worth saying out loud.
“It's not in an employer of record's interest to really move you around on that model. Except maybe from a contractor to EOR because the fees go up.”
I said that on our podcast, talking about the Graduation Model, and I'll stand by it here. When we tell a company its contractors in Spain look like employees, we make more money if they listen. So don't take our word for it. Run the test yourself.
What should you do before 2 December 2026?
Check every long-running contractor against the local test now, not when the new rules land. Start with the same three questions the regulators ask: who controls the work, whose tools they use, and who carries the risk if it goes wrong. Our free contractor classification checker takes you through them.
Teamed helps companies with contractors abroad fix the setup rather than hope nobody asks: Guard covers the misclassification risk while you stay the engager, Protect makes Teamed the engager and takes on the liability, and where someone should be an employee Teamed employs them through its employer of record service in 187+ countries.
And if the honest answer is that someone genuinely runs their own business, sets their own hours and works for three other clients, leave them as a contractor. Plenty of people are exactly that.
Most of Europe will probably miss the December deadline. That's not really the point. The question at the heart of the Directive, who has to prove what, has already been answered in Canberra, in Sacramento and in Brussels. The contract used to settle it. It doesn't any more.
Opinion, not legal advice. This is Tom's view. The facts in it come from pages we check every week, listed below. Rules differ by country, so take advice on your own setup.
The facts behind this piece.
Written by Tom Price-Daniel, Co-founder, TeamedMore Teamed Opinion
