This piece explains how Lithuania’s proposed platform-work rules would determine whether a service provider is genuinely self-employed or working under platform control, and why that matters for public procurement.
A legal status based on working reality
Lithuania’s Seimas is considering amendments to the Labour Code for people providing courier and passenger-transport services through platforms including Bolt, Wolt and Uber. The proposed approach would look at the factual working relationship rather than relying only on the label attached to it. Authorities would assess whether the individual can choose working hours, the volume of orders and the price of the service, or whether those conditions are controlled by the platform. The aim is to draw a clearer line between genuine self-employment and work performed under conditions resembling an employment relationship. The changes remain under consideration, so the proposed test is not yet a settled legal outcome.
Algorithms are central to the proposed test
Platform workers and their representatives say that unclear payment systems and automated decisions can leave people with little control over their income. A driver may face sanctions for rejecting an order, while algorithmic decisions may temporarily reduce the number of orders available or restrict an account. Labour-law expert Emilija Švobaitė said such restrictions could resemble downtime under traditional employment law, although no court finding establishing that point is reported in the source. The proposed amendments seek greater transparency about the conditions of work, the reasons for receiving or not receiving orders, and the basis for penalties. They would also give platform workers a route to the Labour Disputes Commission.
What the change could mean for public buyers
For public bodies procuring courier, passenger-transport or other platform-enabled services, the proposed approach makes the supplier’s labour model a potentially relevant consideration. A tender or contract may need to distinguish between a supplier that genuinely organises independent providers and one whose systems determine key aspects of how work is performed. The source does not set out new procurement rules or say that public contracts must change. Its transferable lesson is the proposed legal mechanism: examine actual control over time, orders, prices and access to work, rather than treating a contractor’s formal classification as decisive. Buyers would need to follow the final Lithuanian rules and any applicable procurement guidance.
Implementation is still being worked through
The amendments transpose provisions of the European Union Platform Work Directive into Lithuanian law. Social security and labour vice-minister Tadas Vinokuras said the objective was for workers to know their conditions, understand what is required of them and avoid unjustified penalties. Tomas Tomilinas, chair of the Seimas Social Affairs and Labour Committee, warned that implementation would be difficult where people are formally not employees and lack employment relationships, particularly when platforms are registered outside Lithuania. Parliamentary consideration is due to continue in November, while Lithuania must implement the directive by December. The article records competing concerns and proposals, not a completed reform or a proven finding of concealed employment.
IN NUMBERS
The proposed Lithuanian model would make platform control, including algorithmic control, more important than contractual labels. That distinction could matter beyond individual worker rights: public buyers and suppliers dealing with platform-based services may have to understand who controls the work and what protections apply. The practical effect will depend on the final amendments and their implementation.
Reported from lrt.lt, 2026-10-21. The Tender Wire is published by Otnox.
