4. Trends and Specific Cases

A. The Primacy of Factual Circumstances over Contractual Wording

Under settled French case law, the existence of an employment relationship does not depend on the wording chosen by the parties or on the contractual status assigned to the relationship. Courts will assess the actual conditions under which the activity is performed.

The French Supreme Court (Cour de cassation) consistently defines a relationship of subordination as the performance of work under the authority of an employer having the power to give orders and instructions, supervise performance and sanction breaches committed by the worker (French supreme Court – Cour de cassation, 24 January 2024, 22-18.615; French Supreme Court – Cour de cassation, 5 March 2025, 23-18.431).

French courts therefore rely on a factual analysis based on a body of indicators (faisceau d’indices) to determine whether such subordination exists in practice. This approach applies equally to traditional service relationships and to digital platform work.

In the platform economy, this analysis coexists with the statutory presumption of non-employment applicable to self-employed individuals registered with the relevant authorities, including ride-hailing drivers (Article L.8221-6 of the French Labour Code).

However, this presumption is rebuttable and may be overturned where the factual circumstances reveal a relationship of legal subordination.

B. Platform Workers: Increased Scrutiny by French Courts

French courts have significantly developed their case law regarding platform workers over the past several years.

In its landmark Take Eat Easy decision, the French Supreme Court reclassified a delivery rider as an employee after finding that the platform exercised significant control through a geolocation system allowing real-time monitoring and through a system of penalties that could ultimately lead to account deactivation (Cass. soc., 28 November 2018, No. 17-20.079).

The Supreme Court confirmed and expanded this approach in its well-known Uber decision of 4 March 2020 (Cass. soc., 4 March 2020, No. 19-13.316). The Court held that the driver’s supposedly independent status was “fictitious” because Uber exercised substantial control over the performance of the services. The Court notably relied on the following elements: fares were determined unilaterally by the platform, drivers could not freely build their own clientele, Uber monitored drivers through geolocation tools; and repeated refusals of rides could trigger temporary disconnection from the application.

According to the Court, these factors demonstrated the existence of a relationship of legal subordination sufficient to justify reclassification as an employment contract.

More recently, several appellate decisions have further refined the analysis of platform work. In a series of decisions issued on 18 October 2024, the Douai Court of Appeal held that Uber drivers could be reclassified as employees where the platform organised the transport service, unilaterally determined the conditions under which the services were performed, exercised real-time control over drivers and retained effective sanction powers (CA Douai, 18 October 2024, Nos. 23/01335, 23/01330, 23/01329 and 23/01325). Similarly, the Paris Court of Appeal reached the same conclusion in a decision dated 18 December 2024 (CA Paris, 18 December 2024, No. 22/03462).

These courts emphasised that Uber did not merely act as an intermediary platform. The platform centralised customer requests, allocated rides algorithmically, fixed pricing conditions and prevented drivers from developing their own clientele. The Douai Court of Appeal expressly stated that, by connecting to the application, drivers became integrated into an organised transport service managed by Uber (CA Douai, 18 October 2024, Nos. 23/01334 and 23/01330).

The appellate courts also placed particular emphasis on the role of algorithmic management and digital supervision. They relied on factors such as:

• real-time geolocation;
• continuous monitoring of rides and driver behaviour;
• passenger ratings systems;
• cancellation and acceptance rate monitoring;
• automatic warnings and temporary disconnections; and
• the possibility of account suspension or deactivation.

The courts considered that these tools allowed Uber to exercise genuine powers of direction, supervision and sanction over drivers. The Paris Court of Appeal notably held that the detailed operational rules contained in Uber’s internal policies and “community guidelines” constituted “formal and precise directives characterising the employer’s power of direction” (CA Paris, 18 December 2024, No. 22/03462).

The decisions are also noteworthy because they confirm that the freedom to connect to or disconnect from the platform does not, in itself, exclude subordination. The Douai Court of Appeal accepted the possibility of a form of “intermittent subordination”, limited to the periods during which drivers are connected to the application, holding that “each connection may give rise to a subordinated employment relationship” (CA Douai, 18 October 2024, No. 23/01328).

Similarly, the Paris Court of Appeal held that connection time could constitute working time where the driver remained effectively at the disposal of the platform and could not genuinely attend to personal activities because of the operational constraints imposed by the application (CA Paris, 18 December 2024, No. 22/03462).

More recently, however, French case law has also shown that reclassification is not automatic. In two decisions issued on 9 July 2025, the French Supreme Court refused to reclassify certain Uber drivers as employees, holding that the evidence submitted did not establish a sufficient degree of subordination (Cass. soc., 9 July 2025, Nos. 24-13.504 and 24-13.513). The Court notably took into account the drivers’ freedom to organise their schedules, connect and disconnect freely, work simultaneously for competing platforms and choose whether to accept rides.

These recent decisions confirm that French courts continue to apply the traditional legal test of subordination to platform work while adapting it to modern forms of algorithmic management and digital supervision. Digital tools such as ratings systems, geolocation and automated sanctions may constitute indicators of subordination, but they are assessed globally and, on a case,-by-case basis.