Gig Economy in the UK and South Korea: Legal and Communication Challenges in Platform Work
- UCL Law for All Society
- Feb 7
- 3 min read
By Naeun Kim
The gig economy — work mediated by digital platforms such as Uber, Deliveroo — has redefined how people earn and how labour is governed. This transformation raises not only legal but also communicative questions: how do media narratives, political discourse, and public sentiment shape the regulation and reputation of platform work? From London to Seoul, debates over worker classification, rights, and algorithmic management unfold not only in courts but also across social media, news outlets, and public forums.
South Korea’s recent proposal for a ‘worker presumption system’ marks a decisive move toward expanding labour protections for freelancers and platform-based workers. Meanwhile, the UK continues to navigate the aftermath of its 2021 Supreme Court ruling that recognised Uber drivers as ‘workers’, entitling them to core employment rights. By comparing these contexts, this article explores how law and communication mutually influence one another, illustrating that regulation in the gig economy is as much a product of public discourse as it is of legislative drafting.
Redefining Work: Legal Status and Rights in the Platform Economy
A central tension in the gig economy lies in how workers are defined. Are they employees or independent contractors? This distinction determines access to rights such as the minimum wage, holiday pay, and collective bargaining.
In the UK, the 2021 Uber BV v Aslam decision established that Uber drivers are ‘workers’, even though they contract through an app. The ruling reshaped expectations for platform obligations and inspired subsequent claims by Deliveroo and Bolt couriers. It also prompted public conversations about fairness, precarity, and the limits of flexibility.
Meanwhile, in South Korea, on 20 January 2026, the government proposed a worker presumption system that would classify anyone providing labour as a worker by default, shifting the evidential burden onto companies. This reform could extend statutory protection to delivery riders, content creators, and freelancers in sectors like webtoons — digital comics originally produced in South Korea — or online education.
While critics argue such measures could increase operational costs or reduce platform innovation, supporters view them as a long-overdue recognition of gig workers’ economic dependency and vulnerability.
Media Narratives and the Public Construction of Labour Rights
Legal change rarely occurs in isolation; it grows from social storytelling. In both the UK and South Korea, journalism and public campaigns have driven awareness of platform labour issues.
In the UK, media coverage of Uber drivers’ 2025 Valentine’s Day strike foregrounded the themes of overwork and underpayment, humanising workers who were once seen as ‘micro-entrepreneurs’. Viral TikTok videos and union-organised hashtags — such as #FairPayNow — painted gig work as emblematic of broader precarity in the post-pandemic economy.
South Korean media have reported extensively on delivery accidents, union protests, and debates surrounding election-related service pauses in 2025, which transformed gig workers from invisible intermediaries into visible agents of social concern. Korean media’s narrative framing, emphasising community safety and fairness, differs from the UK’s rights-based rhetoric by reflecting distinct cultural and communicative traditions.
Media framing guides legal interpretation by shaping what counts as a labour issue. As social attention grows, it can accelerate governmental response, influencing both policy priorities and judicial attitudes. In this sense, communication functions as both a mirror reflecting public concern and a motor of driving legal reform.
The gig economy embodies a global negotiation between flexibility and fairness, but its legal outcomes depend as much on communication as on legislation. The UK’s judicial precedent and South Korea’s policy proposal both demonstrate that worker protection evolves through the interplay of courts, governments, and the public sphere. Media discourse and social activism translate lived experience into legal attention, while legal rulings, in turn, reshape how societies discuss fairness and work in the digital age. Sustainable platform labour, therefore, requires a dual focus: robust legal frameworks that secure rights, and communicative environments that ensure those rights remain visible and valued.
Sources:
Edited by Artyom Timofeev
Comments