The draft was written with app-based couriers and drivers in mind, yet the ministry expressly lists translators among those the law is aimed at, and the definition of a platform in the draft is broad enough that it could extend to freelance marketplaces, AI data-labelling services and some IT specialists working on B2B terms.
For now it is only a bill: the public consultation closed on 25 August 2026. Next, the draft has to be adopted by the Council of Ministers, which is scheduled for the fourth quarter of 2026, and most of the law will enter into force one month after publication. Poland must transpose the Directive by 2 December 2026, so Parliament has little time and the wording may still change.
What the Directive requires to improve working conditions in platform work
The Directive was adopted on 23 October 2024. It has two main parts: the status of people who work through platforms, and control over the algorithms that manage that work. It also sets out platforms' transparency obligations towards national authorities.
Under the Directive, a digital labour platform is a service that:
- is provided, at least in part, at a distance by electronic means, such as a website or a mobile app;
- is provided at the request of the recipient of the service;
- involves, as a necessary and essential component, the organisation of paid work performed by individuals, irrespective of whether that work is performed online or in a certain location;
- uses automated monitoring or decision-making systems.
The Directive applies only if a service meets all four conditions at once. It covers food and grocery delivery apps (Glovo, Wolt), ride-hailing services (Uber, Bolt), on-demand household services (cleaning, minor repairs) and microtask platforms where an algorithm hands out data-labelling or testing assignments.
The recitals of the Directive explain that the definition does not cover services that merely bring a contractor and a client together (by publishing listings or showing a list of available specialists) and do not intervene in the work after that. Listing boards that charge a commission therefore generally fall outside the Directive.
The Directive requires Member States to put in place procedures for checking whether a person working through a platform is in fact in an employment relationship.
The Directive introduces a presumption of employment: the contract between a platform and a contractor is presumed to be an employment contract where facts indicating control and direction are found. What that means is determined by national law, collective agreements and practice, taking into account the case law of the Court of Justice of the EU. The Directive contains no closed list of indicators.
The second key element is the primacy of facts. An employment relationship is determined first and foremost by how the work is actually performed, including how the platform uses automated monitoring and decision-making systems. Whether the parties labelled the contract a mandate contract (umowa zlecenia) or a contract for specific work (umowa o dzieło) rather than an employment contract (umowa o pracę) makes no difference. Once an employment relationship is established, national law must clearly specify who bears the employer's obligations: the platform itself, an intermediary, or both.
The burden of rebutting the presumption lies with the platform: it will have to prove that the relationship is not one of employment under the standards of that same national law. A contractor may bring proceedings to have their contract reclassified as an employment contract. In addition, if the labour inspectorate suspects misclassification, it opens an inspection or reclassification proceedings on its own initiative.
The Directive sets a cut-off date: for contracts concluded before 2 December 2026 and still running on that date, the presumption applies only to the period from that date onwards. The procedure described above does not apply to any earlier period.
The European Commission's 2021 proposal contained a closed list of five criteria, but that list did not make it into the final text. The indicators the media now cite (a mandatory schedule, penalties for turning down orders, a ban on subcontracting and on working for others) therefore remain pointers drawn from the earlier draft and from case law, not an approved list.
In practice the Directive defers to national law and local practice and sets only a general framework, so the concept of control and direction will be shaped by Polish legislation and case law, as well as by the practice of the National Labour Inspectorate (Państwowa Inspekcja Pracy, PIP).
The second half of the Directive deals with the algorithms of digital labour platforms and applies to everyone who performs platform work, employees and B2B contractors alike. A platform may not process data on a person's emotional or psychological state, their private communications or data from outside working time. Contractors must be informed about automated systems, a human must oversee how those systems work, and a decision to restrict, suspend or close an account may likewise be taken only by a human.
What the Polish draft proposes
Under the Polish bill, if a contractor or their representatives make a plausible case, based on the actual circumstances of the work, that the platform or an intermediary exercises direction, in particular control, the person is presumed to work under an employment contract.
In its explanatory memorandum, the ministry acknowledges that Polish labour law has never had such an institution before. The draft leaves the definition of the employment relationship in Article 22 of the Labour Code untouched and presents the presumption (a person works under an employment contract unless the platform proves otherwise) as a procedural aid. Under Article 11 of the draft, it applies in all administrative and court proceedings to establish an employment relationship, except criminal, tax and social security cases.
The presumption can be relied on by the contractor, their representatives and labour inspectors. If the contractor's representative takes the initiative, the person concerned is notified.
The procedure before the National Labour Inspectorate (PIP) works as follows:
- The contractor files an application with PIP, or the inspectorate inspects the platform on its own initiative.
- If the facts plausibly point to an employment relationship, the district labour inspector opens proceedings and notifies the platform and the contractor.
- The platform or intermediary has 14 days from receipt of the notice to rebut the presumption.
- If the presumption is not rebutted within 14 days, or the right to rebut it is waived, the inspector issues a decision establishing an employment relationship. The decision takes effect for the future, while for the past period the inspector brings a court action on the worker's behalf.
Opening such proceedings interrupts the limitation period for employment claims. The draft also introduces joint and several liability of the platform and intermediaries, such as the fleet partners in ride-hailing services through which drivers are paid.
The transitional provisions are the most contentious part. Under the draft, the presumption also extends to contracts in force on the day the law takes effect, for periods from 2 December 2026 onwards. During the consultation, employers' organisations criticised the vague definition of a platform, how easily the presumption is triggered and the short deadline for rebutting it.
The PIP reform on reclassifying contracts is already in force
The bill is aimed primarily at couriers, drivers and other contractors who work through online services. For most IT professionals on B2B contracts, the PIP reform that is already in force matters more. Since 8 July 2026, amendments to the National Labour Inspectorate Act have been in effect: a district labour inspector can reclassify a mandate contract or a B2B contract as an employment contract by way of a decision, without going to court and without a claim from the contractor.
In the first five weeks, the inspectorate carried out more than 100 inspections and issued 121 orders establishing an employment relationship. We explained in detail how this mechanism works, how to appeal a decision and which arrangements survive an inspection in our article "B2B or Employment Contract in Poland: What Has Changed for IT Companies Since 8 July 2026". The Minister of Labour explained that the sequence was chosen deliberately: without an administrative mechanism, the platform presumption would work only in court, and couriers hardly ever get that far.
The result is two regimes. On the general track, the inspector gathers evidence against the criteria in Article 22 of the Labour Code: work under the employer's direction, at a place and time set by the employer, for remuneration. For platforms the bar is lower: the contractor only has to make a plausible case for direction and control, and it is for the platform to rebut the presumption. The draft does not stop the inspectorate from switching to the general track if the platform track fails.
Who in IT is affected
The line depends on who actually manages the work. The more decisions on pricing, tasks and access to orders a service's algorithm takes, the closer the service comes to what the law regulates. Typical models look like this:
| Model | Platform Work Act | Where the main risk lies |
|---|---|---|
| Freelance marketplace: the client and contractor agree price and deadlines between themselves, while the service takes a commission and keeps the reviews | Probably not, if the service only brings the parties together | Grey area where the ranking algorithm effectively decides who gets the orders |
| The service itself assigns tasks, sets pay, checks quality automatically and deactivates people for low ratings (data labelling and AI training, crowdtesting, translation, moderation) | Highly likely | PIP inspection and a finding of employment under the simplified procedure, which may lead to taxes and social security contributions being recalculated |
| IT company or outstaffing provider, with a B2B contractor working within the client's team | As a rule, no | Here the Platform Work Act is unlikely to apply, and the main risk comes from the PIP reform and the general criteria of Article 22 of the Labour Code |
| Foreign platform, contractors working from Poland | Yes, if the work is performed in the EU, wherever the platform is registered | The same, plus questions of applicable law and jurisdiction |
| Contractor works through an intermediary (agency, fleet partner) | Yes, the intermediary is covered too | Joint and several liability of the platform and the intermediary |
The broad scope worries experts too. Some consider the draft's definition of platform work too wide and see it as a first step towards a presumption of employment for the whole market. Others point out that elements of control and dependence are inevitably present in any commercial relationship, so the new criteria of platform direction put legitimate B2B and mandate contracts in the IT sector at risk.
From ZUS arrears to losing IP Box: what reclassifying a B2B contract can cost
The inspector's decision establishes the employment relationship for the future, while the past period is decided by a court on the inspector's claim.
The platform's costs are made up of unpaid social security contributions to ZUS (the Social Insurance Institution) and health insurance contributions, the personal income tax advances it should have withheld as an employer, pay in lieu of untaken annual leave and other payments due to the worker. The presumption itself does not apply in tax and social security cases, but Article 19 of the draft gives ZUS and the tax authorities a ready basis for additional assessments. After that, the usual employment protections apply: the minimum wage, overtime pay, annual leave, notice periods and protection against dismissal.
For the contractor, reclassification is often a bad deal. On B2B terms, an IT professional typically pays the 12% lump-sum tax on revenue (ryczałt) or the flat-rate linear tax combined with the 5% IP Box, and decides how much and when to work. On an employment contract, at the same cost to the client, take-home pay comes out substantially lower. On top of that, the tax authorities and ZUS may recalculate taxes and contributions, and whether the tax reliefs claimed were justified will have to be assessed case by case.
What to do now
The law has not been passed yet, but it may be adopted before the end of 2026. To prepare for its entry into force, platforms and companies that find contractors through apps should, before the end of the year:
- map their service against the conditions set by the Directive;
- check actual practice, not just the wording of the contract: who sets prices and tasks, what happens when an order is declined, whether a substitute can be sent and whether contractors can work for competitors;
- collect evidence of contractors' independence in advance: logs of declined tasks, data on work for other clients, free choice of working hours;
- if the platform uses AI, check that a human is involved in decisions to block accounts and terminate contracts with contractors;
- update the information given to contractors about automated systems and carry out a data protection impact assessment (DPIA);
- review contracts with intermediaries in light of joint and several liability.
REVERA's Warsaw office works with IT companies, game studios and technology platforms. We check contractor engagement models against the draft and the PIP reform, prepare documentation for labour inspections and represent clients in disputes over contractor status.
