The rapid development of digital platforms has given rise to a new work pattern known as the gig economy, where individuals perform tasks on a flexible, on-demand basis through mobile applications. While this model offers efficiency and broader access to work opportunities, it also leaves significant gaps in the legal protection of workers. Individuals working within the gig economy are often labeled as “partners” rather than employees, resulting in the absence of formal labor protection. Consequently, many of these workers lose their fundamental rights as formal employees, such as minimum wage protections, social security benefits, humane working hours, and safeguards against unilateral termination.

Employment relations in the gig economy (including ride-hailing, delivery services, and freelance digital platforms) are informal and typically not governed by a legally valid employment contract. Workers are bound solely by unilateral terms imposed by the digital platform, without the ability to negotiate or obtain social protection such as national social security (BPJS) or employment insurance.

Common characteristics of employment relationships in the gig economy include:

• Absence of a permanent employment contract;
• No recognition as an “employee” under statutory labor regulations;
• Lack of BPJS or social security protection;
• Unilateral termination of work through sudden account deactivation.

In the context of Indonesian labor law, this structure contradicts the fundamental principles of an employment relationship as regulated under Article 1(15) of Law No. 13 of 2003 on Manpower, which requires the elements of work, order, and wage, as the essential components establishing an employment relationship.

Legal Framework for Worker Protection in Indonesia

Worker protection in Indonesia is established through several national legal instruments, including:

1. Manpower Law (Law No. 13 of 2003 as amended by the Omnibus Law on Job Creation)

   This law regulates the rights and obligations of employees and employers, including minimum wage standards, working hours, social security, and prohibitions against unilateral termination.

2. Indonesian Criminal Code (KUHP)

Relevant provisions include:

• Article 374 – Embezzlement;
• Article 378 – Fraud;
• Article 359 – Negligence causing injury or death.

These provisions may be applied to serious corporate misconduct resulting in harm to workers.

3. Supreme Court Regulation (PERMA) No. 13 of 2016 on Procedures for Handling Corporate Criminal Cases

This regulation affirms that corporations—including digital platforms—may be held criminally liable if proven to have committed or allowed the commission of a criminal act.

4. Law No. 39 of 1999 on Human Rights

This statute recognizes the right to work and the right to fair remuneration as fundamental human rights. Systematic and widespread violations of these rights may amount to serious human rights violations.

On a global scale, Indonesia is also bound by ILO Conventions No. 87, 98, and 131, which guarantee freedom of association, the right to collective bargaining, and protection of fair wages.

Corporate Criminal Liability of Digital Platforms

In the gig economy context, corporate criminal liability may arise when:

1. There is a systematic violation of workers’ rights;
2. Such violations are committed by or with the knowledge of corporate management or directors; and
3. The conduct financially benefits the platform.

Liability may be established based on three legal theories:

1. Identification Theory : The actions of management are deemed to be the direct actions of the corporation.

2. Vicarious Liability : The corporation is liable for unlawful acts committed by employees within the scope of their employment.

3. Strict Liability : Liability may be imposed without requiring proof of fault, as long as the violation occurred for the corporation’s benefit.

Concrete Examples and the Urgency of Legal Enforcement in the Gig Economy

A clear example of potential corporate criminal conduct in the gig economy is the unilateral deactivation of online ride-hailing drivers’ accounts without compensation, despite years of service, or unilateral reductions in fare rates by the company. When such actions are carried out broadly, repeatedly, and intentionally, they may constitute systematic violations that satisfy the elements of corporate criminal liability.

The gig economy, as a modern form of labor relationship, demands an adaptive legal framework. Despite the significant financial gains enjoyed by digital platforms, corporations remain subject to legal accountability. When workers’ rights are violated in a structured manner that benefits the company, the enforcement of corporate criminal law becomes not only relevant, but urgent.