Technology driven gig economy business models and the law

“Technology driven gig economy business models (e.g. Uber, Deliveroo, Amazon Mechanical Turk, Lime) are disrupting established services and notions of work. What do you think are the three most challenging emerging regulatory challenges that gig economy platforms pose? How would you suggest the companies address these to create more ethical digital business models for workers, users and society?”

Introduction

Technology-driven gig economy business models are becoming more popular and are disrupting current business models around the world.[1] Gig economy business models are often described as sharing economy platforms and typically provide an online platform where users can interact to find work or hire someone for a job.[2] These platforms are characterized as using technology to ‘create links between individuals to make use of resources’[3] and involve strangers on both sides of the market who exchange for goods or services.[4] These platforms also offer a secure method to make payments, and users are subject to standard contractual terms.[5] Platforms to create trust amongst users have ratings and reviews systems that are viewable to users.[6] Uber (ride-sharing application) and Airbnb (short-term rentals) (together defined as the “platforms”) are examples of technology-driven gig economy business models that have disrupted established services and notions of work.[7] These online platforms have a huge economic, societal, and cultural impact around the world operating in diverse destinations.[8] Platforms are subject to different local laws and regulations.[9]

The sharing economy raises several legal issues, often because services do not fit in traditional legal categories.[10]The objective of this paper is to explore the three most challenging emerging regulatory challenges that gig economy platforms pose.

Firstly, the lack of recognition of the labour rights of gig workers will be explored. For the purposes of this paper, the terms crowd workers and gig workers are used interchangeably and are defined as ‘workers who use online platforms to seek new opportunities to find work in a flexible way to earn income’.[11] It will be proposed that sharing economy platform companies develop worker’s statements of rights to be more transparent with workers.[12] Platforms could propose to Regulators the creation of a new intermediate worker category that would protect vulnerable gig workers by extending certain labour rights protections.[13]

Secondly, the regulatory challenge of the power imbalance asymmetry of sharing economy platforms and their manipulation of user data through algorithms amongst other mechanisms and the impact on consumers will be explored.[14] Issues of consumer protection that includes data protection and quality concerns will be discussed. It will be argued that companies should implement data privacy policies, appoint company data privacy officers, and create accessible frequently asked questions to users concerning data and privacy issues. Companies could increase transparency by implementing standards similar to the European General Data Protection (GDPR) rules in all jurisdictions where it operates.[15] Disclosures of algorithms and regular reports that can be subjected to third party review and inspections could help to prevent unfair competition, and misuse of information.[16]

Thirdly, the regulatory issue of liability for harms caused by sharing economy actors will be evaluated. It will be suggested that platforms should be required to have mandatory insurance to cover certain harms that result from the sharing economy.[17]Platforms could also cooperate in implementing experimental regulations that promote safety and better user experience.[18]

Throughout this paper, case law, legislation, and scholarly articles will be used to support the findings and arguments. Perspectives from multiple jurisdictions will be provided. Regulatory issues of the sharing economy will be discussed in detail, and recommendations will be made on how companies can address these regulatory challenges to create more ethical digital business models for workers, users, and society.

Regulatory Issue 1: The lack of recognition of the rights of gig workers (labour rights)

A contentious regulatory issue in the gig economy is whether or not gig workers can be classified as “employees” or if they are “independent contractors”.[19] Independent contractors do not have access to traditional employment benefits, while workers classified as employees receive certain employment benefits.[20] Incorrectly classifying gig workers as independent contractors erodes their basic labour protections.[21] Employees who are incorrectly classified lose out on workplace protections, which may include unemployment insurance, disability compensation, overtime pay, minimum wage protection, unfair dismissal protection, protections from discrimination, paid sick days, and union protection, amongst other benefits.[22]

In the sharing economy, more gig workers are working under ‘flexible working conditions’ as either independent contractors or consultants and not as traditional employees with an employer. [23]Under the gig economy business model, workers assume the economic burden and risks.[24] For gig workers, income is variable, and workers may have to work more at times for low pay to make up for periods where there is less work.[25]In situations where market conditions are not favourable, gig workers’ pay will likely decrease.[26]While some gig workers view themselves as independent contractors, others believe that they should be considered employees and given basic labour protections.[27]

Platforms like Uber argue that they are not employers and that gig workers are not employees.[28] These platforms view gig workers as self-employed contractors who do not have employment protections.[29] Platforms do not want to have workers classified as employees as it would be more costly for platforms, and they would have additional obligations, including labour laws to adhere to.[30] Given that platforms do not want to be considered employers, they have not put in place benefits for gig workers such as insurance or retirement benefits in fear of having workers classified as employees.[31]

Several cases have been brought before the courts by gig workers who desire to be classified as employees to have greater labour rights and protections.[32] An example of this type of case is the UK case is Uber v Aslam. [33] In Uber v Aslam, the court had to determine the nature of the scope of the employment of an Uber driver. [34] The claimants were taxi drivers and claimed that they should be entitled to minimum wage according to the National Minimum Wage Act 1998.[35] They claimed that they should be entitled to annual paid leave.[36] Uber argued that taxi drivers were self-employed independent contractors.[37] The Court of Appeal upheld the Employment Tribunals decision that Uber drivers are classified as workers within the Employment Rights Act and are therefore entitled to minimum wage and holiday pay.[38] While this decision was decided in favour of gig workers, this is not always the case.[39]

O’Connor v. Uber Techs is a well known case that was decided in favour of Uber.[40] In O’Connor, the plaintiffs initially brought a case against Uber for misclassifying drivers as independent contractors as opposed to employees.[41] However, the Ninth US Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the class certification order that was previously granted, citing that Uber has an arbitration clause that prevented class actions.[42]This case demonstrates how platform companies like Uber are opposed to being considered an employer and desire to have cases held confidentially before an arbitrator.

Another example of a case that was decided in favour of the sharing economy platform adversely affecting the rights of gig workers was the UK case, IWGB v RooFoods Ltd.[43]In the IWG case, the High Court determined that the delivery couriers are not workers under the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act and could, therefore, not be entitled to trade union recognition.[44]

Courts in several jurisdictions have grappled with the issues of classifying gig workers as either employees or independent contractors.[45] One of the difficulties in classifying gig workers is that some factors point in the direction of employee status.[46] In contrast, other factors point in the direction of independent contractor status, making the determination of worker status ambiguous and difficult to do.[47]

The factors in the legal test for classifying workers are outdated when applied to the sharing economy.[48] For example, In the United States case Cotter v Lyft Inc, a federal court had to decide whether Lyft drivers were employees or independent contractors under the laws of California.[49] Under California law, employees are given many benefits and protections in contrast to independent contractors who receive little protection, if any.[50] In this case, Judge Vince Chhabra highlighted how the test for classification of workers is unclear when it is applied to the sharing economy and is outdated.[51] “The test the California courts have developed over the 20th Century for classifying workers isn’t very helpful in addressing this 21st Century problem. Some factors point in one direction, some point in the other, and some are ambiguous.”[52] The judge questions whether a new category of ‘worker’ should be created to provide certain protections to gig workers.[53] However, at the time of the case, without legislation creating a new classification of ‘worker’ in California, the outmoded test for classifying workers would continue to apply.[54]

Proposed Solutions to Regulatory Issue 1

Increased transparency about the rights that workers have would be beneficial to users and society.[55] Platform companies could provide a form of workers’ statement outlining gig workers’ rights, before the gig worker commences work.[56] This statement would outline how gig workers would get paid, accrued entitlements and the benefits they can receive.[57] Platforms that fail to comply with this requirement could be subject to claims for compensation.[58]

The traditional legal classifications for workers and employees are unsuitable for gig-workers.[59] The clarification of workers’ employment status will be beneficial by helping to protect workers and, at the same time promoting “innovative thinking.”[60]Additionally, clarification of gig workers’ employment status will clog the courts less with cases where judges are faced with making a decision between categories that are unsuited for gig workers.[61]

It is proposed that a new category of worker that falls between an independent contractor and employee could be a solution to protect gig workers.[62] This approach would allow gig workers to continue to have freedom and flexibility while at the same time have rights recognized under the law.[63] Germany and Austria are examples of European countries that have recognized a third intermediate category for gig workers.[64] This new category should be clearly defined capturing the employment relationships of the sharing economy.[65] In developing the test for this category, emphasis should be placed on the level of platform control in the context of the modern day sharing economy.[66] It should also be ensured that the “requirement to perform work personally is no longer an automatic barrier to accessing basic employment rights.”[67]

Platform companies may wish to propose to regulators the creation of an intermediate category for gig workers in jurisdictions where it doesn’t exist yet. While this new intermediate category would be costly and onerous for platform companies it would provide gig workers with some protections such as minimum wage protection amongst other protections.[68] At the same time, platforms would be able to provide benefits to gig workers without the fear of being classified as an employer.[69]

Some jurisdictions have expansively redefined the concept of worker.[70]An example is the recently passed California Assembly Bill 5 (AB5) 2019 that codified the California Supreme Court’s landmark case Dynamex Operations West, Inc v Superior of Los Angeles. The new law treats gig workers as employees provided the company has control over how the gig workers perform tasks, and the work done by gig workers is part of the company’s regular business.[71] The onus on the business entity to demonstrate otherwise.[72] This regulatory approach would be costly for platform businesses and may even threaten their existing business models that have been built around contractors and inexpensive labour.[73] Thus, platform companies may wish to propose an intermediate category for gig workers to prevent more onerous requirements that come with being an employer.

Regulatory Issue 2: Sharing Platforms Power Asymmetry and the lack of Consumer Protection (Data)

The utilization of platforms for services such as ridesharing or renting may be convenient.[74] However, there is evidence to suggest that users are being manipulated by powerful sharing economy platforms and may not have adequate consumer protection laws to protect their interests.[75]

Sharing economy platforms such as Uber and Airbnb have been characterizing themselves as software app providers that are distinguishable from traditional service providers for taxis and hotels.[76] By characterizing themselves as software app providers platforms seek to evade safety and hygiene regulatory requirements putting consumers at a disadvantage.[77]For example, Airbnb does not always require that hosts adhere to local licensing requirements that hotels and other short term renters are required to adhere to.[78] Technology has allowed companies to get around regulatory categories, and it has been argued that this creates ‘unfair competition.’[79]There are low barriers to enter the sharing economy, and for certain platforms, it is possible for gig workers to have a criminal record or no education raising safety and quality issues. [80]

Some people have argued that self-regulation is the best method for ensuring consumer protection in the sharing economy.[81]They argue that platforms promote safety through identity verification and review systems.[82] However, the way platforms review mechanisms work and the information they present to users demonstrates how they can manipulate information presented to consumers.[83] For example, Airbnb’s positive reviews are ‘artificially inflated.’[84] Airbnb focuses on issues such as location and host friendliness as opposed to safety issues.[85] Consumers may not wish to post a negative review in fear of retaliation that may hinder future bookings.[86]

Sharing economy platforms are uniquely positioned to monitor all users of their platforms.[87] Little is known about the monitoring activities of platforms and the gathering and sharing of personalized information.[88] The sharing economy platform experience often involves the exchange of personalized information, which may include providing; ‘geo-location, personal photos, credit card information, travel history, username, email address, phone number, amongst other information’.[89] This information acts as a way of identifying an online person.[90] Through the use of sophisticated algorithms, the use of high volumes of personalized user data, and lack of adequate regulation platforms have been able to manipulate user information.[91]

There is evidence that platforms such as Uber are using user information to “mislead, coerce, or otherwise disadvantage sharing economy participants.”[92]In the United States case Meyer v. Kalanick, the plaintiff brought a case against Uber for the use of Uber’s algorithm for price-fixing, which is illegal under the Sherman Antitrust Act.[93] While this case was forced to be heard under arbitration due to an enforceable arbitration clause in Uber’s terms and conditions, it demonstrates how Uber is in a powerful position to harm society.[94]

Proposed Solutions to Regulatory Issue 2

The sharing economy should implement regulation that protects consumers while at the same time promoting innovation.[95] While data protection issues are not unique to the sharing economy, they are still of great concern for online platforms.[96]

Platform companies should be more transparent with how they collect, process and analyze data. Companies should create data privacy policies, appoint data privacy officers and have an easily accessible frequently asked questions section on their website to address data protection and privacy issues.

The European General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) could be used as a model to regulate data protection for the sharing economy in jurisdictions that do not have similar regulations. The GDPR has enhanced an individual’s control over their data.[97] The GDPR forces companies to be more transparent in processing information, requiring user consent to collect data.[98] Under article 20 of the GDPR, users could request the platform to provide them with their information, and the platform would be required to provide them with accessible information in a portable, transferable format.[99] Users could transfer their machine-readable, portable information to another competing platform. [100] The ability for a consumer to easily switch to another service provider platform could help redress some of the power imbalances of the sharing economy. [101] Platform companies will wish to retain users and be incentivized to increase transparency, protect user data appropriately, and provide excellent services to their users. [102]

To ensure that sharing economy platform companies are not taking advantage of its participants through the use of algorithms to create unfair competition and mislead users, disclosure of its algorithms to designated appropriate authorities could be made available by companies. For example, in the United States, disclosure of the algorithms could be made upon request to the Federal Trade Commission to ensure that anti-competitive business practices are not being carried out. [103]

Additionally, sharing platform companies could publish reports that can be reviewed and inspected by external third parties to ensure that they are not discriminating, misleading consumers or creating unfair competition. By publishing reports and disclosing how they use algorithms this will contribute to limiting companies opportunities to abuse their powerful position. [104]

Businesses could also collaborate with regulators to establish “permissible and impermissible practices or develop a set of criteria to determine that a given digital act or practice rises to the level of unfairness or deception.”[105] This would help guide companies on best practices and demonstrate that companies are willing to operate more ethically.

In practice, platform companies will not want to give up their powerful position. They will likely be reluctant to disclose confidential business information. However, platform companies that implement these solutions will create more ethical digital business models.

Regulatory Issue 3: Liability in the Sharing Economy

There are risks to using the sharing economy for gig workers and consumers that use their services.[106] For example, ride-sharing companies drivers might not have adequate insurance or any insurance. If an Uber driver injures a consumer, they may be under-compensated.[107] Risks exist in the home-sharing economy as well.[108]Many homeowners may not have insurance in place to cover damages when they rent out their homes for profit. [109]

One emerging regulatory challenge is how to “address harms caused by sharing economy actors.” [110] Examples of some liability questions are who should be liable when a Lyft or Uber driver is involved in an accident?[111] Who is liable when an Airbnb guest is physically harmed?[112]

There are several liability lawsuits against platforms.[113] One case that highlights the difficulties in bringing a liability case against a platform is Doe v Uber technologies. In Doe v Uber, a woman filed a lawsuit against Uber after she was sexually assaulted in a vehicle by a Uber driver.[114] The plaintiff alleged liability of Uber based on vicarious liability and that Uber was negligent and failed in its duty of care.[115] However, the plaintiff failed to establish that the Uber driver was an agent of Uber. [116]Even if the Uber driver was found to be an employee of Uber, the employees actions would need to arise from the employment.[117] The court’s reasoning, in this case, shows how vicarious liability might not be suitable for the sharing economy. There are several other liability lawsuits that demonstrate similar challenges to Doe v Uber in bringing a liability claim against a platform.[118]

Sharing Economy Platforms (particularly those operating in Europe) are often characterized as Information Society Service Providers (ISSP) and afforded limited liability protections.[119] For example, in Europe, platforms that are ISSP have limited liability under Articles 12–15 of the eCommerce Directive 2000.[120] Provided that the ISSP has been reasonably diligent and has no knowledge of illegal or harmful content, then they are limited from liability.[121] If ISSP’S have too much control over workers, then they will lose their ISSP hosting status and will be deemed a service provider.[122]

Even though sharing-economy companies like Uber characterize themselves as an online platform facilitating the exchange of services, Uber operates for-profit and exercises a degree of control over transactions.[123] It is argued by some people that platforms should be held to some extent responsible for the harms that result to participants. [124] However, exposing platforms to liability claims may hinder their development, be costly, and time-consuming. [125] It is argued that an appropriate balance must be struck between promoting innovation and ensuring consumer safety.[126]

Proposed Solutions to Regulatory Issue 3

It is important to have a legal regime that properly addresses harms that result from the sharing economy to protect workers, users, and society. One solution could be for sharing economy platforms to have adequate insurance to cover industry-specific risks. [127] For example, for ride-sharing apps like Uber would be required to maintain insurance in all jurisdictions where Uber operates similar to California Vehicle Code Section 5430. [128] At the same time, drivers would be required to have their own insurance in place to be able to use the platform. Other platforms such as Airbnb, for example, would be required to have insurance for claims for personal injury or property damage to cover all locations where Airbnb hosts operate. Platform companies that maintain insurance could help address harms that result from the sharing economy that may not be appropriately covered under current liability regimes.[129]

It is argued that platforms should not lose their Information Society Service Providers (ISSP) liability protection, and instead, companies should cooperate with lawmakers to create experimental regulations designed to improve safety and user experience.[130] This approach would encourage innovation while at the same time, provide a framework tailored to address the risks of a sharing economy platform. Companies would demonstrate that they are willing to have some responsibility that their suppliers and users meet regulatory standards. Platforms should be required to meet safety regulations standards, which would include regular inspections.[131] An improvement in existing statutory regimes could also be pursued.[132] One example of progressive regulation is the Vehicle-for-hire Innovation Amendment Act of 2014 (“VIAA”) that sets out specific requirements for sharing economy platforms like Uber to adhere to.[133] Non-adherence to prioritizing safety or following the regulations could result in fines or liability.[134] Platform companies that actively cooperate and participate in creating regulations to address industry risks and comply with these new regulations will help make the user experience safer and better. Through market regulation and experimental regulations, the risks to using the sharing economy will be better addressed.

Conclusion

The technology-driven gig economy business models are creating new economic, societal, and cultural impacts globally.[135]The rise in popularity of the gig economy business models is disrupting current established services and notions of work. The sharing economy has posed new challenges, and consideration must be given to creating regulations that address these challenges.[136] All regulatory approaches should be designed to protect consumers while at the same time promoting innovation and competition.[137]

The gig economy has become more prominent, and there has been a decline in long-term employment relations.[138] There have been several litigation cases on whether or not gig workers should be classified as employees who are entitled to greater labour protections or if gig workers should be classified as independent contractors. [139] It is proposed that companies create a worker’s statement of rights to be more transparent with workers about their rights and protections. Platforms could also propose the creation of an intermediate category of gig worker to avoid the uncertainty of employment classifications.

Sharing economy platforms are in a powerful position with access to high volumes of data. [140] Through the use of algorithms and access to personalized information they have been able to manipulate users and prices to their advantage. [141] It has been proposed that companies should implement data privacy policies, appoint data privacy officers and have an easily accessible frequently asked questions section on their website to address data protection and privacy issues. These company solutions could help increase transparency for users and society. Companies could adhere to European GDPR rules in other jurisdictions for data protection which would create more transparency and incentivize sharing platform companies to protect user data, and provide superior services so that users do not flock to competitor companies. [142] Disclosures of algorithms to authorities and publishing regular reports could help prevent unfair competition and misuse of information. [143]

Regulatory challenges also exist in determining liability for harms caused by sharing economy actors. [144] Clarification about who is liable and mandatory insurance are proposed mechanisms to ensure that harmed users are adequately compensated.

One regulatory issue that was beyond the scope of this essay includes taxation, determining who and what should be taxed. [145] Another emerging regulatory challenge that was briefly discussed is the issue of unfair competition. [146] Several sharing economy platform companies have been sued on multiple occasions for alleged unfair competition and false advertising. [147] These are examples of regulatory challenges that would need to be explored further.

There is no easy regulatory response to the emerging challenges posed by the sharing economy. [148] The law needs to continue to develop to address the fast-paced technological developments in the sharing economy.

[1]Prassl Jeremias, “Humans as a Service: The Promise and Perils of Work in the Gig Economy” (2018) Oxford University Press

[2]Finn Makela, Derek McKee and Teresa Scassa, “Law and the “Sharing Economy”: INTRODUCTION: The “Sharing Economy” through the Lens of Law” (2018) University of Ottawa Press

[3]Tatiana-Eleni Synodinou, Philippe Jougleux, & Christina Markou, “Chapter 7 European Union Information Law and the Sharing Economy: EU Internet Law Regulation and Enforcement” (2017) Springer International Publishing

[4]Codagnone Cristiano, Martens Bertin, “Scoping the Sharing Economy: Origins, Definitions, Impact and Regulatory Issues” (2016) Institute for Prospective Technological Studies Digital Economy Working Paper, №2016/01

[5]Supra 2

[6]Supra 4

[7] Kristofer Erickson & Inge Sorensen, “Regulating the sharing economy” (2016) Internet Policy Review Vol 5(2)

[8] Will Sutherland and Mohammad Hossein Jarrahi, “The Gig Economy and Information Infrastructure: The Case of the Digital Nomad Community” (2017) Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 1, Article 97

[9] Daniel Guttentag, “Regulating Innovation in the Collaborative Economy: An Examination of Airbnb’s Early Legal Issues” (2017) Springer International Publishing

[10]Molls Cohen & Corey Zehngebot, “What’s Old Becomes NewL Regulating the Sharing Economy” (2014) 58 Boston Business Journal 6

[11] Lao Marino, “Workers in the “Gig” Economy: The Case for Extending the Antitrust Labor Exemption” (2018) University of California Davis Vol 51

[12] Matthew Taylor, “Good work: the Taylor review of modern working practices” (2017) https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/627671/good-work-taylor-review-modern-working-practices-rg.pdf [online available 15 April 2020]

[13]Martin Risk & Thomas Dullinger, “The concept of ‘worker’ in EU law” (2018) European trade union institute Report 140

[14]Calo Ryan, “The Taking Economy: Uber, Information, and Power” (2017) Columbia Law Review Vol 117

[15]European General Data Protection (GDPR) EU 2016/679

[16]Yaraghi, Niam; Ravi, Shamika “The Current and Future State of the Sharing Economy,” (2017) Brookings India IMPACT Series №032017

[17] Raymond H. Brescia, “ Regulating the Sharing Economy: New and Old Insights into an Oversight Regime for the Peer-to- Peer Economy” (2016) Nebraska Law Review Vol 95 Iss 1(4).

[18]Hannah Posen, “Ridesharing in the Sharing Economy: Should Regulators Impose Uber Regulations on Uber?” (2016) Iowa Law Review 405

[19]Paul Oyer, “The gig economy: non-traditional employment is a great opportunity for many, but it won’t replace traditional employment” (2020) IZA World of Labor 471

[20]Emily C Atmore, “Killing the Goose That Laid the Golden Egg: Outdated Employment Laws Are Destroying the Gig Economy” (2017) Minnesota Law Review 96.

[21]Ibid

[22] Yasaman Mozami, “UBER in the US and Canada: Is the Gig-Economy Exploiting or Exploring Labor and Employment Laws by Going Beyond the Dichotomous Workers’ Classification?” (2017) University of Miami International and Comparative Law Review

[23] Gerald Friedman, “Workers without employers: shadow corporation and the rise of the gig economy” (2014) Review of Keynesian Economics Vol 2(2)

[24]-[26]Ibid

[27] Arun Sundararajan, “The Sharing Economy: The End of Employment and the Rise of Crowd-Based Capitalism” (2016) MIT Press

[28]Jeremiah Adams Prasse & Martin Risak, “Uber, Taskrabbit & Co: Platforms as Employers? Rethinking the Legal Analysis of Crowdwork” (2016) Comparative Labor Law & Policy Journal, Forthcoming, Oxford Legal Studies Research Paper №8/2016

[29] International Labour Office, “Non-Standard Employment around the World: Understanding challenges, shaping prospects” (2016) Geneva International Labour Organization

[30] Supra 19

[31]Ibid

[32]Daniel E Rauch, “Like Uber, but for Local Government Law: The Future of Local Regulation of the Sharing Economy” (2015) Ohio State Law Journal Vol 76(4)

[33]Uber BV and others v Aslam and other [2018] EWCA Civ 2748

[34]- [39]Ibid

[40]O’Connor v. Uber Techs. — 904 F.3d 1087 (9th Cir. 2017)

[41]-[42]Ibid

[43] Independent Workers’ Union of Great Britain v RooFoods Limited (trading as Deliveroo) (2017) TUR1/985(2016)

[44]Ibid

[45] Supra 20

[46] Supra 28

[47] Ibid

[48] Supra 20

[49] Cotter v. Lyft, Inc., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30026, №13-cv-04065-VC (N.D. Cal. Mar. 11, 2015)

[50]-[54] Ibid

[55]Supra 12

[56] Ibid

[57]Ibid

[58]Ibid

[59]Supra 22

[60]Ibid

[61] Ibid

[62] Ibid

[63] Supra 13

[64]Ibid

[65]Supra 50

[66]-[67]Ibid

[68]Mark Freedman & Jermias Prassl, “Employees, workers and the ‘sharing economy’ changing practice and changing concepts in the United Kingdom” (2017) Spanish Labour Law and Employment Relations Journal. Vol 6

[69]Ibid

[70]Supra 63

[71]California Assembly Bill 5 (AB5) 2019

[72]Ibid

[73]Kate Conger & Noam Scheiber, “California Bill Makes App-Based Companies Treat Workers as Employees” (September 11 2019) online available at https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/11/technology/california-gig-economy-bill.html [accessed 15 April 2020]

[74]Edith Ramirez et al, “The “Sharing” Economy issues Facing Platforms, Participants & Regulators” (2016) FTC Staff Report Federal Trade Commission

[75]Supra 14

[76]Alex Rosenblat & Luke Stark, Algorithmic Labor and Information Asymmetries: A Case Study of Uber’s Drivers, 10 Int’l J. Comm. 3758, 3762 (2016).

[77]Supra 14

[78]Supra 9

[79]Arthurs Harry et Al, “Law and the “Sharing Economy:” Regulating Online Market Platforms (2018) University of Ottawa Press

[80]Supra 14

[81]-[86]Supra 9

[87]Molly Cohen & Arun Sundarajan, “Self-Regulation and Innovation in the Peer-to-Peer Sharing Economy” (2017) University of Chicago Law Review Vol 82(1).

[88]Ibid

[89]Giulia Ronzini et al, “Privacy in the Sharing Economy” (2020) Report from the EU H2020 Research Project Ps2Share: Participation, Privacy, and Power in the Sharing Economy

[90]Ibid

[91]Supra 14

[92]Ibid

[94]Ibid

[95] Supra 4

[96]Reins, Leonie, “Regulating New Technologies in Uncertain Times” (2019) Hague TMC Asser Press

[97]European General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) 2016/679

[98]Article 20 European General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) 2016/679

[99]European General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) 2016/679& Heiko Richter & Peter Slowinski, “The Data Sharing Economy: On the Emergence of New Intermediaries” (2019) IIC — International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law 50

[100]Engels, B. “Data portability among online platforms” (2016) Internet Policy Review, Vol 5(2).

[101]Supra 96 Chapter “Sharing data and privacy in the platform economy: the right to data portability and “porting rights”

[102]Ibid

[103] Geist Michael, “The Sharing Economy and Trade Agreements: The Challenge to Domestic Regulation: Sharing Economy” (2018) University of Ottawa Press

[104]Supra 14

[105] Ibid

[106]Agnieszka A McPeak, “Sharing Tort Liability in the New Sharing Economy” (2016) Connecticut Law Review Vol 49(1)

[107]Ibid

[108] Johanna Interian, “Up in the Air: Harmonizing the Sharing Economy Through Airbnb Regulations” (2016) Boston College International and Comparative Law Review Vol 39(1)

[109]Ibid

[110]Supra 106

[111]Ibid

[112]Marzen Chad, Prum Darren A, Aalberts, Robert J, “The New Sharing Economy: The Role of Property, Tort, and Contract Law for Managing the Airbnb Model” (2017) NYU Journal of Law & Business Vol 13(3)

[113]Inara Scott & Elizabeth Brown, “Redefining and Regulating the New Sharing Economy” (2017) University of Pennsylvania Journal of Business Law Vol 19(3)

[114]Doe v. Uber Tech, Inc., №3:15-cv-04670 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 8, 2015).

[115] — [117] Ibid

[118]Supra 113

[119]Pierre Goudin, “The Cost of Non-Europe in the Sharing Economy: Economic, Social and Legal Challenges and Opportunities” (2010) European Parliament Added Value Unit Study

[120] Articles 12–15 of the E-Commerce Directive (2000/31/EC)

[121]- [122]Ibid

[123] Supra 106

[124] Supra 17

[125] Ibid

[126] Supra 106

[127] Alexander B Traum, “Sharing Risk in the Sharing Economy: Insurance Regulation in the Age of Uber” (2016) Public Law Policy & Ethics 511

[128] California Vehicle Code Section 5430

[129] Supra 106

[130]Supra 18

[131]Ibid

[132]Ibid

[133]Vehicle-for-hire Innovation Amendment Act of 2014 (“VIAA”)

[134] Ibid & Hannah Posen, “Ridesharing in the Sharing Economy: Should Regulators Impose Uber Regulations on Uber?” (2016) Iowa Law Review 405

[135]Supra 3

[136] Ibid

[137]Supra 10

[138]Supra 236

[139]Supra 32

[140]Supra 89

[141]Supra 14

[142]European General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) 2016/679& Heiko Richter & Peter Slowinski, “The Data Sharing Economy: On the Emergence of New Intermediaries” (2019) IIC — International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law 50

[143]Supra 14

[144]Supra 123

[145]Bozdoganoglu Burcin, “Tax Issues Arise From a New Economic Model: Sharing Economy” (2017) International Journal of Business and Social Science Vol 8(8)

[146]Supra 16

[147]Examples Checker Cab of Philadelphia Inc. v. Uber Technologies., Inc., №14–7265, 2015 WL 966284 & Greater Houston Transportation Company et al v. Uber Technologies, Inc. et al, №4:14–0941, 2015 WL 1034254 & Yellow Group LLC v. Uber Technologies Inc., №12 C 7967, 2014 WL 3396055

[148] Supra 2

Jennifer Harding-Marlin (jhmarlin.com) citizenship by investment attorney