Algorithmic transparency in labor: new obligations from the AI Act to the Transparency Decree

1. The facts

   The core issue of algorithmic transparency in Italy is linked to the management of riders. According to reports from publications such as L'Espresso, Avvenire, and Il Giorno, the most significant case involved the Deliveroo platform and its algorithm named Frank.

   The software used reliability and participation scores to assign work shifts, but it was found to penalize workers who were absent for legitimate reasons, such as illness or exercising the right to strike. The proceedings concluded with a landmark judgment by the Court of Bologna, which has become final, establishing the discriminatory nature of the system.

   Subsequently, journalistic investigations highlighted how, despite reforms, the risk of opaque digital subordination remains. Currently, new merit-stage proceedings brought by organizations like Nidil CGIL aim to obtain the decoding of predictive parameters used by platforms to prevent further indirect discrimination based on algorithms acting as black boxes.

2. 

   The rules in play

   The regulatory framework is composed of several pillars. Legislative Decree 104/2022 (Transparency Decree), in Art. 1-bis, requires employers to inform workers about the use of automated decision-making or monitoring systems, providing for administrative penalties in case of omission.

   Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 (AI Act) classifies such systems in the labor sector as high-risk (Art. 6 and Annex III), imposing strict risk management and human oversight obligations, with penalties that can reach 7% of global turnover.

   On the anti-discrimination front, Art. 25 of Legislative Decree 198/2006 defines indirect discrimination, which applies when apparently neutral criteria place certain workers at a disadvantage. Finally, Art. 22 of the GDPR guarantees the right not to be subject to decisions based solely on automated processing.

3. What the jurisprudence says

   The jurisprudence of the courts of merit has clarified that an algorithm, although technically neutral or blind to personal motivations, can be discriminatory if it is unable to distinguish between unjustified absences and absences protected by law.

   The jurisprudence of the Supreme Court has also confirmed that platform workers can benefit from subordination protections, making algorithmic transparency essential for verifying the proper management of the employment relationship.

   In parallel, the Data Protection Authority has sanctioned major platforms, finding violations of the principles of lawfulness and transparency when the functioning of the reputational score is not adequately explained to workers, preventing them from understanding how to improve their working status.

5. Analysis drafted and verified with edit.legal

   To verify the provisions cited in this article, we used edit.legal. Test our legal AI on official sources and apply it to your own matters.

   Try edit.legal AI

8. What it teaches professionals

   First, it is essential not to limit oneself to generic information, but to draft technical documents explaining the weighting factors of the algorithm. Second, lawyers must request the establishment of effective human oversight procedures («human-in-the-loop») to correct discriminatory automation.

   Third, companies should conduct periodic algorithmic audits to anticipate challenges based on the AI Act. Fourth, in litigation, transparency does not necessarily mean producing the source code, but rather providing a clear description of the system's inputs and outputs.

9. Developments: from anti-union conduct to digital exploitation

   Between 2024 and 2026, the algorithmic transparency issue reached a significant turning point. The Court of Milan confirmed the anti-union conduct of Uber Eats regarding collective algorithmic dismissals, while in 2026, the Milan Public Prosecutor's Office ordered judicial administration for Deliveroo and Glovo. According to reports from Il Manifesto and L'Unità, the companies are under investigation for alleged unlawful intermediation and labor exploitation, so-called digital "caporalato". The entry into force of EU Directive 2024/2831 also introduced a presumption of employment, shifting the burden of proof onto platforms that use AI systems to monitor workers.

References: D.Lgs. 104/2022 Art. 1-bisRegolamento (UE) 2024/1689 (AI Act)D.Lgs. 198/2006 Art. 25Regolamento (UE) 2016/679 (GDPR) Art. 22

Editorial oversight: Avv. Federico Papa·ICAMUpdated 8 August 2026Content drafted with AI support and subject to editorial source checks. Despite these controls, inaccuracies may remain: reports and rectification requests are welcome. Report a correction