Platform Work Act

What is being proposed and at what stage it is

The transposition of Directive (EU) 2024/2831 of the European Parliament and of the Council on improving working conditions in platform work consists of two separate but interconnected government bills: the Platform Work Act and an amendment to the Labour Code and other regulations. It is the latter that changes the general definition of dependent work. The Czech Republic must transpose the Directive by 2 December 2026 at the latest; the Directive itself is an active EU regulation, while the Czech implementing act is currently only a draft.

The Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs (MPSV) submitted the draft for comments on 26 March 2026, the government approved both proposals on 31 August 2026, and they were submitted to the Chamber of Deputies in September. The original March version anticipated an effective date of 1 December 2026; according to the MPSV, after approval by the government, the Platform Work Act is proposed to take effect on 1 January 2027. This is still only a proposed date, which may change during the discussions in the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate.

For companies, the practical conclusion is: monitor the legislative process, but do not act on the draft as if it were already in force. Until the Chamber of Deputies, the Senate, and the President approve the laws, the current regulation of dependent work in the Labour Code remains in force. What currently applies to relationships with independent contractors (IČO) outside of employment is summarized in the article on švarcsystém (illegal employment) of IČO assembly workers and designers; the proposed regulation does not replace it, but rather refines it.

The Directive sets a minimum standard of protection for platform work for member states, including rules for determining employment status and for algorithmic management (Directive (EU) 2024/2831). Exactly how this standard will be implemented under Czech legislation will only be shown by the final wording of the act after discussions in the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate; we describe the content of the proposals according to the government materials and MPSV information, not according to current law.

Why this also affects companies without a platform

Public attention is mainly focused on food delivery and digital taxi services, but the accompanying amendment to the Labour Code changes the definition of dependent work in general. According to the MPSV, this change is intended to apply to all entities on the labour market, not just digital platforms – and therefore also to companies that have nothing to do with platforms.

Today's regulation distinguishes between the characteristics of dependent work and the conditions under which it must be performed. The characteristics are the relationship of superiority of the employer and subordination of the employee, performance on behalf of the employer, according to their instructions, and personally; the conditions of performance are wage, salary or remuneration, costs and responsibility of the employer, and working hours at the workplace or another agreed location (Section 2 of the Labour Code).

Such work can only be performed within a basic employment relationship, i.e., in an employment relationship or on the basis of agreements on work performed outside an employment relationship (Section 3 of the Labour Code). A company that meets these characteristics but conducts cooperation on a trade license is thus exposed to the risk of švarcsystém under the current regulation, regardless of whether the new regulation ever comes into force.

The amendment aims to specify the relationship of superiority and subordination with four characteristics that must be met simultaneously: the employer organizes the work, controls its performance, the worker performs it according to their instructions, and during working hours. The formulation targets the practice where a company cooperates with people on a trade license but factually manages them in the same way as employees – regardless of whether tasks are assigned to them by an app or by an operations manager over the phone. The exact wording may still change during the legislative process.

A company that currently uses IČO contractors in a regime similar to employees should therefore monitor the development of the amendment regardless of the fact that it does not operate any platform – this is a change to the general definition used to assess what is still cooperation with an entrepreneur and what is already a disguised employment relationship. Similar issues are currently being addressed by companies introducing other atypical forms of cooperation, as described in the article on flexible forms of work.

The risk exists independently of the fate of the proposals, because it is already the case today that illegal work is work with the characteristics of dependent work under Section 2, Paragraph 1 of the Labour Code, performed by a natural person outside of an employment relationship (Section 5, Letter e) of the Employment Act). A company that enables the performance of such work commits an administrative offense under Section 140, Paragraph 1, Letter c) of the Employment Act, which carries a fine from CZK 50,000 to CZK 10 million under Section 140, Paragraph 4, Letter f) and a ban on activity for up to two years.

Rebuttable presumption: only for platform work

The most significant innovation of the Platform Work Act is the rebuttable presumption of an employment relationship: a platform worker is considered to be a person in a basic employment relationship with the platform or intermediary if the established facts indicate that the characteristics of dependent work are met. The platform or intermediary must then prove that it is not an employment relationship. According to available information, the presumption will apply in administrative, tax, and court proceedings, but not in criminal proceedings and social security matters.

For companies outside the platform economy, it is essential that this presumption does not directly affect them. For an assembly worker, salesperson, or IT contractor on IČO whose work is not assigned by a digital work platform, status is assessed according to the general definition of dependent work – i.e., today under the active Section 2 of the Labour Code and, after potential approval, under the new wording from the accompanying amendment, without the reversed burden of proof.

Exactly how the rebuttal of the presumption will work in practice and what evidence will be sufficient will only be shown by the final wording of the act and the first decision-making practice. However, platforms and intermediaries cooperating with people on IČO should already prepare documentation proving the actual independence of their contractors, as their defense in proceedings will stand on the factual setup of the cooperation, not on the title of the contract.

The proposal also affects complaints submitted to the labor inspectorate. According to its explanatory memorandum, the government bill submitted to the Chamber of Deputies "does not exclude an inspection based on anonymous complaints, but entirely excludes the obligation of the SÚIP/OIP to inform anonymous complainants of the outcome of the inspection" (Chamber of Deputies Print No. 300). For a company, this means that an inspection can still be triggered by an anonymous complaint, and it should therefore not rely on the inspectorate not coming without a signed whistleblower; exactly how this change will be reflected in the law depends on the final wording.

The concept of undeclared work is not a novelty of the proposals, but current law. The Employment Act currently uses it to refer to work where the employer failed to fulfill the obligation to inform the labor office of the employment of a foreigner or to register a person in the employee registry under the unified monthly reporting, and enabling such work carries a fine of up to CZK 3 million for a legal entity. The registration logic on which such inspections stand is also demonstrated by the practice of reporting agreements on work performance (DPP).

A quick test of whether the risk applies to your company today is the answer to the question of whether you determine the working hours, place of performance, and directly manage the method of work execution for your IČO contractor. If so, the risk exists regardless of how the proposals eventually turn out, and it is worth addressing regardless of the legislative process.

Algorithmic management: new obligations only for platforms

Unlike the redefinition of dependent work, the obligations regarding algorithmic management under the proposal apply only to digital work platforms. The proposal defines these more broadly than just entities that assign work via an algorithm: it refers to a service provided at least partially electronically at a distance, at the recipient's request, which organizes the work of individuals for remuneration and involves the use of automated systems.

According to the proposal, platforms are to inform workers about the automated systems used, ensure human oversight and review of key decisions, and evaluate the impact of algorithms on working conditions once every two years. Decisions to restrict or terminate cooperation or suspend an account must be made by a human. At the same time, the proposal prohibits processing workers' private communications, data outside the time they offer or perform platform work, and evaluating their emotional or psychological state.

A company that does not operate any platform in this sense generally does not need to address this part of the proposal. However, the boundary between standard shift-planning software and a digital work platform within the meaning of the proposal is not always obvious at first glance, and for companies using automated tools to schedule external workers' work or evaluate performance, it is worth having this boundary assessed.

The general boundaries of employee monitoring, into which the new rules on algorithmic management fit, are currently set by the Labour Code together with the GDPR and are analyzed in the article on GDPR and employees. A company that currently handles employee monitoring responsibly according to these rules will be closer to any new obligations from the platform act than a company that has not started addressing employee monitoring at all.

Platform and intermediary: obligations for both

The proposal also explicitly anticipates cases where a platform uses an intermediary, and aims to prevent the evasion of new obligations by inserting another company between the platform and the worker. If a platform worker is contractually linked to an intermediary, the obligations imposed by the law on the platform towards the worker are to be fulfilled by both the platform and the intermediary, and the proposal imposes additional obligations on the platform when involving an intermediary.

This structure is particularly relevant for companies operating as subcontractors or labor intermediaries for a larger platform – compliance with the rules under the proposal does not lie solely on the platform itself, but also on the company entering between the platform and the worker. This is not a general joint and several liability for all obligations and damages, but a division of specific duties; anyone cooperating with platforms in this way should monitor how this structure develops in further discussions.

What to do with the draft right now

The first step is to monitor the legislative process, not to base any decisions on it yet. Until the laws pass through the Chamber of Deputies, the Senate, and are signed by the President, the current regulation applies – and the proposed effective dates for such proposals are commonly postponed, as shown by the shift from December 2026 to January 2027.

The second step, which makes sense today regardless of the outcome of the legislative process, is to map how many IČO contractors the company uses in a regime similar to employment – i.e., with specified working hours, personal performance of work, and subordination to instructions. This analysis is useful in itself, as similar characteristics currently establish the risk of švarcsystém regardless of the new regulation, and the new definition of dependent work will only refine them.

A fine of up to CZK 10 million for enabling illegal work and a ban on activity for up to two years stem from the active Employment Act (Section 140 of the Employment Act) – this risk is therefore worth mapping regardless of how the legislative process turns out, and labor inspectorate checks are already focusing on it today.

The third step, for companies that actually operate a platform or cooperate closely with a platform as an intermediary, is to start preparing internal documentation for the automated systems used before the information obligation takes effect. Gathering an overview of what systems the company uses and for what purpose takes time, and it is better to do it in advance rather than under the pressure of an approaching deadline. This also includes preparing materials for the biennial evaluation of the impact of algorithms.

The fourth step is to set up alerts for key legislative milestones – first reading, discussion in Chamber committees, second reading, and potential amendments – because it is at this stage that the content and deadlines of proposals change most frequently. Both proposals need to be monitored, as the amendment to the Labour Code is more important for companies without a platform.

The fifth step is to distinguish between what the company must do under today's law and what is only being proposed. Today's risk of švarcsystém and its penalties under the Employment Act apply regardless of the fate of the new laws and deserve attention on their own. In the case of platform work, the proposal also introduces a rebuttable presumption that changes the evidentiary position of the platform or intermediary; for other companies, the change in the general definition of dependent work is of primary importance.

Risks of the new law for companies without a platform

Final summary

Neither the Platform Work Act nor the accompanying amendment to the Labour Code are active regulations yet – they have been approved by the government and are currently in the Chamber of Deputies, and the proposed effective date may shift. For companies that do not operate any platform, the amendment with the new definition of dependent work is of primary importance; the presumption of an employment relationship applies only to platform work.

For company management, a reasonable step today is to map how many IČO contractors operate in a regime similar to employment, and to monitor how both proposals develop in further discussions. This risk exists independently of the fate of the proposals, as similar characteristics establish the risk of švarcsystém under the current regulation as well.

The Prague-based legal team at ARROWS law firm monitors the legislative process of both proposals, assesses whether and how individual provisions may affect a specific company, and helps set up cooperation with people outside of standard employment so that it stands up under both current and upcoming legislation. Write to us at consultation@arws.cz or review our employment law practice.