ILO Convention 193: what it actually says about platform work

Adopted in June 2026, Convention 193 of the International Labour Organization has been cited in the debate over digital platform work as though it settled the question of employment status. The prevailing reading is that the international instrument imposed classification as employment.

Lawyers who have examined the text argue otherwise. According to Nadia Demoliner Lacerda and Erika S. Paulino, of Mundie Advogados, and lawyer and professor André Zipperer, the Convention accommodates different forms of relationship between workers and platforms, including self-employment, and leaves the definition of applicable criteria to national legal systems.

The distinction matters, and it matters now, because the argument is being used in ongoing proceedings.

What the Convention actually provides

The text works on two fronts, and they are worth separating.

The first is procedural. The Convention requires countries to adopt mechanisms to correctly determine the existence or absence of an employment relationship. It creates a duty of method, not a predefined outcome. Saying that a country must have criteria for classification is different from saying what the classification must be.

The second is protective, and does not depend on classification. The Convention secures a floor of protection that does not depend on there being an employment relationship, and that is where its most consequential content sits:

• Occupational health and safety.
• Combating violence and harassment.
• Personal data protection.
• Transparency over the automated systems that monitor and organise the work.
• Access to social security on terms no less favourable, under its article 12.
• Remuneration consistent with national legislation, under its article 10.

Reading the two fronts together explains why the Convention does not decide the employment status question. It shifts the axis: rather than resolving classification, it guarantees protection even where there is no employment.

Why it does not yet apply in Brazil

There is a point of law that tends to fall out of the public discussion and that is decisive.

Convention 193 has not been ratified by Brazil. The federal government is still finalising the ratification proposal for submission to the National Congress.

An International Labour Organization convention has no automatic effect in domestic law. It depends on approval by Congress and on ratification, and only then becomes part of the legal order. Before that, it is not law in force in the country and cannot be applied as the basis of a decision.

That does not make it irrelevant. An adopted international instrument, even unratified, is commonly invoked as an element of interpretation and as an indicator of regulatory direction. But there is a difference between serving as an argument and being an enforceable rule, and that difference is exactly what is at stake when the text is cited in court.

What is already enforceable today, regardless of ratification

Here is the part that changes company routine, and that tends to be overshadowed by the debate over employment status.

Much of the Convention's protective floor already rests on Brazilian rules in force. A company waiting for ratification before acting is waiting for something that, on several points, is already required of it:

• Data protection and automated decisions. Law 13,709/2018 already governs the processing of personal data and, in its article 20, gives data subjects the right to request review of decisions taken solely on the basis of automated processing that affect their interests.
• Safe environment and risk management. Regulatory Standard 1 already requires occupational risk management and, since 26 May 2026, expressly covers psychosocial risk factors.
• Combating harassment. Law 14,457/2022 already imposes measures to prevent and address harassment within the framework of the Internal Committee for Accident and Harassment Prevention.

The practical effect is direct. A company that organises its algorithmic transparency, its data policy and its risk management today is not anticipating a future rule. It is complying with current ones and, in the process, reducing its exposure for the day the Convention is ratified.

What this distinction means in practice

Three consequences, ordered from the most immediate to the most strategic.

There is no automatic basis. Anyone arguing that Convention 193 imposes employment status must show which provision does so, and the specialists' reading is that no such provision exists. Add the absence of ratification and the argument loses both legs.

The discussion returns to the facts. With no international rule settling classification, the examination remains that of article 3 of the CLT on the reality of the arrangement, with attention to subordination.

The protective floor is the real agenda. The regulatory direction, in Brazil and elsewhere, points less towards uniform classification and more towards guaranteeing protection regardless of it. A company preparing only for the employment status debate is preparing for yesterday's question.

The firm's practice

Analysing exposure in platform engagement models, adapting algorithmic transparency and data protection policies in the employment context, and defending companies in disputes over employment status form part of the firm's corporate employment law practice, in interface with the data protection area. Each case, however, depends on its own circumstances, facts and documents.

Conclusion

Convention 193 does not impose classification as employment. It requires countries to have a method for classifying and secures protection that does not depend on the classification.

Beyond that, it is not yet part of Brazilian law, because it has not been ratified. Citing it today as a rule in force is inaccurate.

What it genuinely anticipates is the shape of the debate to come: less about the label attached to the relationship and more about what companies must guarantee to those who work for them, with or without an employment relationship. And much of that agenda is already in force in Brazil, under other names and in other statutes.

Reference basis for review

• Convention 193 of the International Labour Organization, adopted in June 2026, on work on digital platforms, in particular its articles 10 and 12.
• Statements by Nadia Demoliner Lacerda and Erika S. Paulino, of Mundie Advogados, and by lawyer and professor André Zipperer, arguing that the Convention accommodates different forms of relationship, including self-employment, and refers the definition of criteria to national legal systems, as reported by Migalhas on 25 August 2026.
• Status in Brazil: convention adopted and not yet ratified, with a ratification proposal being prepared by the federal government for submission to the National Congress.
• Federal Constitution, articles 49, item I, and 84, item VIII, on the powers of the National Congress and the President of the Republic in the incorporation of treaties.
• CLT, article 3 (elements characterising an employment relationship).
• Extraordinary Appeal 1,446,336, Theme 1,291 of general repercussion before the Federal Supreme Court, reporting judge Justice Edson Fachin.
• Law 13,709/2018 (LGPD), article 20 (review of automated decisions).
• Law 14,457/2022, on measures to prevent and address harassment.
• Regulatory Standard 1, on occupational risk management, with psychosocial risk factors enforceable since 26 May 2026.
• Brazilian Bar Association Rule 205/2021, to preserve the informational character of the content.

Informational content only. This does not constitute legal advice, an offer of services or a promise of results. Any concrete assessment depends on the facts, the documents and the context of each case.