COMBATING FORCED DIGITAL LABOUR

With the advent of Artificial Intelligence (AI) models, the need for drafting a comprehensive law which bridges the gaps in the existing legislations in addressing the issues faced by workers of forced digital labour residing both within India and outside India but are Indian citizens or are employees of Indian employers is especially pertinent in today’s rapidly growing globalised world.

Although AI systems have the capacity to enhance transparency between workers and employers, maintain records of contracts and visas of the workers, and facilitate access to migration information, inter alia, a lack of standardised and publicly available data to decide and conclude whether such platforms actually reduce the persistent vulnerabilities exists. Digital illiteracy among potential and current users further exacerbates the problem.

MEANING OF FORCED DIGITAL LABOUR

Forced digital labour is characterised by exploitative working conditions online wherein the workers’ economic necessity, the level of control wielded by the employers on the former, algorithmic control, lack of autonomy and invasion of privacy create situations akin to traditional forced labour.

MAJOR FORMS OF DIGITAL LABOUR

Content Moderators
Content moderators are employed on the task of filtering and flagging content available on the internet. They are tasked to label and remove disturbing content with the aim of making social media platforms functional and safe to users.

Data Labellers
In 2022, researchers at the Distributed AI Research Institute identified instances of labour abuse of ‘data labellers.’ These workers manually assign labels on separate data pieces which will be later fed into Machine Learning (ML) models. Data labellers are paid low wages and are considered to be cheap labour if their respective countries lack stringent laws and regulations on statutory payment of minimum wages and provision of occupational health and safety measures.

Gig-Platform Workers
The emerging platform economy is based on a model centred on the use of digital platforms. This allows the owners to cut their operating costs and expand rapidly and the customers are also provided with more convenience and choices in their transactions. However, the rights of the labour employed by these platforms, the gig-workers, are constantly violated. They have limited legal protection which provides a leeway to employers to violate their basic human rights and labour rights mandated by the law.

REASONS FOR THE RISE OF FORCED DIGITAL LABOUR

A surge in youth employment all over the world due to lack of institutional opportunities is a major factor for the rise in forced digital labour.

Poverty is another crucial factor in the rise of informal alternatives to traditional employment, such as gig-platform-based job opportunities which are on a rise in India.

THE INDIAN SCENARIO

India’s labour laws distinguish employees as organised and unorganised sectors, with 82% of workers falling under the latter category as of 2019–2020. Gig and platform workers formerly fell in the latter category due to a fluid employer-employee relationship. After the enactment of the Code on Social Security, 2020, gig and platform workers have been recognised as a separate class of workers, apart from the existing classes of organised and unorganised workers.

Fairwork’s 6th annual report, “Fairwork India Ratings 2024: Labour Standards in the Platform Economy”, conducted by IIT Bangalore’s Centre for Information Technology and Public Policy (CITAPP) in collaboration with the University of Oxford, evaluated working conditions of 440 gig-workers on 11 digital labour platforms in India across Bangalore, Chennai, Delhi, Kochi and Thiruvananthapuram.

The assessment was based on five principles:

Fair Pay
Fair Conditions
Fair Contracts
Fair Management
Fair Representation

Each criterion carried two points, making a total of ten points. The findings revealed that BigBasket and Urban Company scored six points each for Fair Pay. Amazon Flex, BigBasket, BluSmart, Swiggy, Urban Company, Zepto and Zomato earned the first point for safety equipment and training under Fair Conditions. Six platforms scored for accessible terms and data protection under Fair Contracts. For Fair Management, seven platforms had appeal processes and four conducted anti-discrimination audits. Under Fair Representation, no platform earned even the first point.

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY FRAMEWORK IN INDIA

Articles 14, 19, 21, 23, 39 and 43 of the Constitution of India are pertinent to labour rights.

Article 14 guarantees equality before law and equal protection of law.
Article 19 ensures freedoms relating to speech, expression, assembly, association and profession.
Article 21 protects the right to life and personal liberty.
Article 23 prohibits traffic, beggary and other similar forms of forced labour.
Article 39 mandates the State to ensure adequate livelihood, equal pay for equal work and protection of workers’ health.
Article 43 provides for living wages and decent working conditions and aligns with United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 8.8.

The Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1975, which abolishes bonded labour by extinguishing bonded debts, can be expanded to interpret and apply to forced digital labour as a stopgap measure until a comprehensive legislation is enacted.

CHALLENGES FACED BY DIGITAL LABOURERS

Labelling workers as independent contractors strips employers of statutory responsibilities.
There is invasive mass surveillance of work activities, eroding the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21.
Algorithmic control invades privacy and increases vulnerability.

There is lack of statutory backing, non-payment of minimum wages, absence of social security and long working hours for meagre pay.
Precarious contracts favour employers with minimal legal oversight on fairness of employment terms.

INTERNATIONAL SCENARIO AND LEGAL FRAMEWORK

Only three out of forty-five major ICT companies—Samsung Electronics, Hewlett Packard Enterprises and Cisco Systems—scored above fifty out of one hundred in addressing forced labour risks in supply chains. The global average score stood at twenty.

The evaluation was based on recruitment practices, purchasing and monitoring practices, and workers’ right to organise.

ILO Convention 29 (1930), known as the Forced Labour Convention, aims to suppress forced or compulsory labour globally. The ILO Digital Labour Platform Tracker provides comparative insights into global laws and judicial developments concerning digital labour platforms.

The Global Commission on Modern Slavery and Human Trafficking (2023) works towards eradicating forced labour internationally.

Section 48 of South Africa’s Basic Conditions of Employment Act prohibits forced labour. Despite supplying global digital labour, African countries derive minimal technological benefits.

Uruguay’s Law 20396 protects delivery platform and urban transport workers by ensuring transparency of contracts, regulated work timings, rights of self-employed workers, and occupational safety.

CONCLUSION

India must implement laws to prevent and restrict the use of goods or services produced through forced digital labour. Such products are intangible and easily transferable, including datasets and AI models trained through exploitative practices.

The New Labour Codes of India consolidated twenty-nine labour laws into four codes and came into effect on 21.11.2025. Gig-platform workers are included under Chapter IX of the Code on Social Security, 2020, requiring aggregators to contribute one to two percent of turnover towards social security benefits such as ESI, PF, maternity benefits, gratuity and old-age protection.

An in-depth research on digital platforms is essential to understand the patterns of forced digital labour in India and its impact on workers, enabling the drafting of effective laws to combat this emerging exploitation.

REFERENCES:

(A) Statutes:

Constitution of India, 1950.
The Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act. 1976.
Code on Social Security, 2020.

(B) Reports:

(C) Websites:

Article written by
Sai Prarthana M
4th Year Student, B.Com., LL.B., (Hons.)
School of Excellence in Law, The Tamil Nadu Dr.Ambedkar Law University, Chennai