Compliance routing for gig and labor platforms

Platforms connecting individual workers to clients sit on top of worker-classification regimes that vary materially by jurisdiction. Magist surfaces which classification framework applies based on the markets you operate in, plus the platform-tax, dispute-resolution, and algorithmic-transparency obligations that travel with worker-classification.

Covers worker-classification regimes across 155 regulations including deep US-state and EU-PWD coverage.

Start a worker-classification analysis →

Worker-classification frameworks covered

California AB5 + AB2257. The ABC test applied through Dynamex and codified at Labor Code §2750.3. Industry carve-outs (AB2257) and the post-Proposition-22 app-based-driver framework round out the California picture.

EU Platform Work Directive. Presumption-of-employment framework with algorithmic-management transparency requirements. The directive is in force; member-state transpositions are tracked as forthcoming.

UK IR35 + Employment Rights Bill. Off-payroll-working rules plus the 2024-onwards shift toward day-one employment rights. Affects gig platforms with UK workers under intermediary structures.

Massachusetts Question 3, New York FIFA, New Jersey misclassification. US-state regimes with platform-specific carve-outs and presumption tests. Deep coverage across these four jurisdictions; broader US-state coverage at standard depth.

Federal-law backstops. FLSA (economic-realities test), IRS Section 530 safe harbor, NLRA scope. Referenced where they affect platform models; not authored as a standalone deep-coverage track.

What the analysis surfaces

Specific classification questions for an individual worker turn on facts Magist doesn’t see (control over schedule, integration into the hiring entity’s business, opportunity for profit or loss). The analysis is the structural starting point: which regimes plausibly apply, what the doctrinal tests are, what enforcement looks like, and where the platform-specific carve-outs sit.

Adjacent obligations the worker-classification axis pulls in: platform-tax reporting (DAC7-style), payments licensing where the platform handles transfers, algorithmic-management transparency under PWD and NYC LL144, and dispute-resolution / right-to-explanation duties.

Coverage caveats

Worker-classification coverage outside California, Massachusetts, New York, and New Jersey is at standard depth and may lag state-level developments (new attorney-general guidance, pending legislation). See /limitations for the per-regulation breakdown.