A lawyer representing two drivers who won an employment case against online taxi firm Uber said the ruling was a "game-changer", one that sent a stern warning to technology firms that they are "not above the law".
Nigel Mackay, from Leigh Day, said the decision at the London Central Employment Tribunal would force Uber to change its practices - and make other companies sit up and take note.
Speaking after the judgment, Mr Mackay said: "It is a massive deal because this is the way forward.
"We are seeing the companies in the so called 'gig' economy often mislabelling - we say - their workers as self-employed. And actually we are saying they are not self-employed, they are workers.
"So other companies that are structuring their business in this way will now need to look at those arrangements because they are at risk of a similar finding."
Mr Mackay said the ruling highlighted a flaw with some technology companies, and suggested the ruling meant they would no longer be able to duck having proper employment laws in place.
He said: "If you run a technology business you can't just use that to hide from employment law. Just because you are a modern technology business doesn't mean you are above the law.
"You have to make sure if you have got people working for you that they are entitled to the basic rights.
"You have to think why would you not want your workers to receive minimum wage and holiday pay in the same way everyone else is entitled."
He added: "The companies that operate in the gig economies are not exempt from the UK legislation."
Mr Mackay called the ruling a "game-changer" as the first to really address the issues.
He said: "Hopefully it will make companies sit up and think, 'actually we need to make sure we are compliant with UK legislation and we can't get around that just by calling our workers self-employed'."
As for the two drivers involved in the test case, James Farrar and Yaseen Aslam, Mr Mackay said they would now be able to claim back-pay for minimum wage and holiday pay, and would be entitled to it in the future.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article