When can gig workers claim a legal labor relationship with a platform? Can companies avoid responsibility by outsourcing management? Are gig workers injured on the job entitled to compensation?

These are among the key questions China’s Supreme People’s Court addressed this week in a set of landmark guiding cases aimed at clarifying labor rights in the country’s fast-growing platform economy.

With 84 million workers now engaged in non-traditional employment arrangements and over 420,000 civil disputes heard in courts over the past five years, these rulings address mounting concerns over legal ambiguity, inconsistent enforcement, and worker protections.

Unlike traditional employment, gig work — often performed through online platforms — offers flexibility in hours, pay structures, and work terms. But this model also allows companies to avoid formal obligations, often leaving workers without basic protections like social insurance.

At the center of these guiding cases is the principle of “dominant labor management” — the degree of control a company exerts over a worker’s tasks, work hours, and income. The court emphasized that formal contracts and labels are secondary to the realities of work arrangements when determining whether an employment relationship exists.

Liu Yu, a professor at the Civil, Commercial, and Economic Law School of China University of Political Science and Law in Beijing, explained that “dominant labor management” should be understood as the presence of a strong degree of personal subordination, economic subordination, and organizational subordination.

“This provides clear guidance for judicial practice and enhances the practical applicability of relevant regulations,” Liu told domestic media.

On the clock

Delivery drivers make up one of the largest segments of China’s gig economy, with millions transporting food, goods, and services across the country. However, their employment status has often been clouded by a web of civil contracts and partnership agreements designed to obscure labor relationships.

A delivery worker surnamed Xu signed a partnership agreement with an outsourcing company tied to a delivery platform. Despite the contract explicitly stating no formal labor relationship existed, the court ruled otherwise.

Xu followed company management rules, underwent performance evaluations, and his work was integral to the company’s operations — all meeting the criteria for dominant labor management and entitling him to compensation after a workplace injury.

In a similar case, a delivery worker surnamed Sheng signed a civil contract as an individual business owner with an outsourcing management firm. After being injured in a traffic accident during a delivery, the court ruled Sheng had a direct employment relationship with the firm, citing management oversight, task assignments, and payroll processing.

At the wheel

The court also examined whether a designated driver surnamed Qin had an employment relationship with a ride-hailing platform. Qin registered on the platform in 2020, passed basic assessments, and used the platform’s app to accept and compete for orders.

The court ruled that the platform acted solely as an information intermediary, with Qin maintaining full autonomy over registration, scheduling, and task acceptance. Requirements such as purchasing uniforms, attending software training, passing driving tests, and complying with appearance checks were deemed operational standards — not indicators of dominant labor management.

Behind the screen

The court also addressed a case from China’s booming livestreaming industry, which includes over 15 million streamers supported by more than 25,000 multi-channel network (MCN) agencies.

In this case, a livestream host surnamed Wang was found not to have an employment relationship with their agency. While the agency imposed certain performance standards through a contract, Wang was not required to follow strict workplace rules, labor discipline, or reward and punishment policies.

The court ruled that these constraints reflected contractual obligations, not dominant labor management, emphasizing Wang’s autonomy over scheduling and performances.

Editor: Apurva.

(Header image: Visuals from VCG, reedited by Sixth Tone)