Should the sharing economy be more tightly regulated to protect workers' rights?

Stance: FOR tighter regulation.

Jurisdiction focus: Mixed (UK/EU with US & city examples). Word target: 750.

Must-use authorities: Uber v Aslam (UKSC 2021); EU Platform Work Directive (2024); Spain "Rider Law" (2021); NYC delivery minimum pay; California Prop 22 (2024 CA Supreme Court).

Definitions

• Sharing economy / platform work: labour intermediated by digital platforms (ride-hail, delivery, tasking) where algorithms allocate gigs, set pay parameters, and can deactivate workers. This definition surfaces the power asymmetry my side will regulate.
• Workers' rights (for this essay): baseline entitlements (pay floors, time off, health/safety, due-process against deactivation, data transparency, collective voice) whether via employee status or functionally equivalent protections.
• "More tightly regulated": smarter, proportionate rules that target misclassification, opacity, and enforcement gaps while preserving genuine flexibility (e.g., portable benefits, minimum earnings guarantees, algorithmic due-process).

Assumptions under challenge

• Main assumption: It is possible to write and enforce rules that raise labour standards in platform markets without destroying flexibility or innovation. (If that's false, regulation would be self-defeating.)
• Further assumption: The status quo (patchwork of court rulings + voluntary standards) cannot reliably deliver core rights at scale because of algorithmic control and enforcement asymmetries.