China's labour ministry has drafted what it calls the country's first departmental rules on gig workers' labour rights, and the most interesting question is not whether platforms will be regulated but how. The draft, released on 8 October 2026 by the Ministry of Human Resources and Social Security (MOHRSS) and open for public comment until 8 November, aims to turn a decade of improvised platform practice into enforceable duties. Its strongest elements, which are transparency about algorithms, human review and a fast appeals channel, are well designed. Its weakest, an expansive push towards formal employment contracts, risks shrinking the flexible work that millions rely on.
The strongest case for the draft
The case for regulation is serious. According to Sixth Tone, the number of people in flexible employment, including those who rely on internet platforms for income, is projected to reach 320 million this year, per the China New Employment Research Center. That figure covers flexible work broadly rather than gig riders alone, but it shows the scale. When a dispatch algorithm sets pay, pace and penalties, a worker can lose income overnight through an account ban with no explanation and no one to appeal to. Rules that answer that gap are not a luxury. China Daily Hong Kong reports that the draft was jointly formulated by seven central departments, and an official signal this broad suggests the problem has moved beyond a single ministry's remit.
What the draft says
Based on reporting by Sixth Tone and China Daily, since the official text could not be rendered when we tried to read it, the draft's main obligations are as follows:
- Contracts. Platforms and partner businesses must sign labour contracts with workers who meet the legal criteria for an employment relationship. Part-time and multi-platform workers get written agreements covering pay, protections and liability. Where a platform and a partner firm jointly manage a worker, all three parties sign.
- Algorithms. Platforms must explain their task-allocation rules to workers and authorities and avoid incentives that push excessive work.
- Due process. Decisions with significant consequences, such as suspending assignments or banning accounts, need human review. Platforms must respond to challenges over pay, hours, performance reviews or bans within 48 hours.
- Accountability. Platforms bear primary responsibility for overseeing partner businesses, and employers must make up any shortfall below the local minimum wage.
- Working conditions. China Daily reports provisions on rest after four continuous hours of work, higher pay for public holidays and wages paid in cash and on time.
Where the design works
The due-process package is the best part. Human review of bans and a 48-hour clock are narrow, auditable duties that do not dictate a business model. They resemble the direction taken elsewhere on automated decisions: a person must be able to look at a consequential decision and the worker must be able to contest it. Requiring platforms to explain allocation logic to workers and authorities is also reasonable, provided the disclosure is meaningful and does not force the publication of trade secrets or anti-fraud signals. Making the platform answerable for its partner firms closes a familiar loophole in which a layer of subcontractors absorbs liability.
The draft also builds on existing practice rather than starting from scratch. Platforms have already moved on benefits under public pressure. Yicai Global reported in February 2025 that JD.com would pay social security for full-time takeaway riders from 1 March 2025, while Meituan said it expected to start paying for full-time and regular part-time couriers from the second quarter. The same report notes a national occupational injury insurance pilot that began in July 2022. The draft codifies where the market has been pushed, which lowers the risk of a sudden shock.
Where it risks overreach
The risk lies in the contract requirement. The draft ties labour contracts to workers who meet the legal criteria of an employment relationship, and that test will do a great deal of work. If regulators and courts apply it expansively, platforms will respond the way firms usually do: by tightening schedules, restricting who can sign up and cutting the marginal part-time or multi-platform riders who value the ability to log on when they choose. Those workers are often students, migrants between jobs and people supplementing income, and flexibility is precisely what they are buying. A rule that protects the employed core by squeezing out the flexible fringe would count as a loss for the people it is meant to help, even if it looks good in the statistics.
The minimum wage top-up has a similar problem. Pay per hour for an on-demand worker depends on idle time that is hard to measure. If a platform must cover any shortfall, it will have strong reason to count and cap hours logged in, which is the opposite of the freedom the model offers. The drafters should say precisely what counts as working time before the rule takes effect.
There is also a speech and transparency dimension that deserves attention. Algorithmic disclosure to authorities is easy to justify, but if it is later widened to cover worker communications or online organising, a labour-protection measure could turn into a monitoring channel. The final text should keep disclosure to the allocation logic and nothing broader.
What to watch
The State Council General Office's opinion on adapting to AI, document 29 of 2026, dated 16 October and published on 23 October, calls for expanding the occupational injury pilot for new-form workers and for regulating AI use in human-resources management. Together with the MOHRSS draft, it shows a coordinated direction: more protection built into how algorithms manage people. The draft itself is on the ministry's site, and the consultation closes on 8 November.
The sensible reading is to keep the process rights, tighten the definitions and let the employment test be applied narrowly. Due process in automated management is a protection that costs little and helps many. A broad shift of the flexible workforce into fixed contracts costs more and may reach fewer people than the headline implies. Beijing should write the first with confidence and the second with care.