An analysis about the legal implications of the absenceof specific regulation for platform-based labor

Abstract

This article presents a brief analysis of the sufficiency of the brazilian legal system in regulating platform-based labor, considering elements taken from the decision-making processes of Labor Courts in cases involving Uber drivers.

In order to do that, 100 judicial decisions published in 2025 by all Regional Labor Courts and the Superior Labor Court were examined,  extracting from them, initially, the nature of the legal relationship recognized by the Court, whether employment or otherwise; the type of employment contract, whether intermittent or not; the elements of the employment relationship deemed absent in cases where the employment nature was not recognized by the Court; besides the concession of different contractual and rescissory benefits to the worker. 

The research revealed that, of 100 decisions analyzed, 27, recognized the existence of an employment relationship; 71, held that no employment relationship was present due the absence of required legal elements; and 2, dismissed the case without ruling on the merits, based on a lack of jurisdiction of the Labor Court to adjudicate disputes involving fraud in service contracts.

Furthermore, in cases where the request for recognition of employment relationship

was dismissed, all decisions indicated the absence of subordination; 19, the absence of onerousness; 11, the absence of habituality/non-eventuality; 15, the absence of personal nature; and 24, the absence of alterity. It is noteworthy that 10 decisions cited the lack of exclusivity in service provision and 1 decision did not specify the legal element considered absent by the Court.

Finally, when analyzing the type of basis invoked for denying the recognition of employment relationship, the research demonstrated that, of 71 decisions helding that no employment relationship was present, 51, relied on jurisprudential data; 40, on borrowed evidence; 22, on undisputed elements; 11, on the parties’ statements; 13, on documentary evidence; 4, on judicial reasoning established in previous proceedings; 3, on matters of common knowledge; 2, on witness testimony; and 2, on doctrinal grounds.