Lithuania would extend algorithmic-management duties to every employer that monitors staff automatically

The Lithuanian Seimas approved bill XVP-1914 and its accompanying acts at first reading on 13 October 2026, by 85 votes to none with 8 abstentions, and referred them to the Committee on Social Affairs and Labour. Plenary consideration is scheduled for 12 November 2026. The bill transposes the EU Platform Work Directive, Directive (EU) 2024/2831, whose transposition deadline is 2 December 2026.

For platforms, the bill would require disclosure of automated monitoring and decision systems, a response to review requests within 10 working days, and reservation of account blocking and dismissal to a human, with emergency automated blocks reviewed within 24 hours.

The provision that reaches beyond platform work

A new paragraph 4 of Article 27 of the Labour Code would apply the general algorithmic-management requirements mutatis mutandis to every Lithuanian employer that uses automated systems to allocate tasks, record working time or assess performance.

That is not gig-economy law. That is remote-worker monitoring law, arriving inside a platform-work bill.

Why this matters

Time-recording software, task allocation tools and performance dashboards are ordinary equipment for distributed teams, and most of the employers running them would not describe themselves as using algorithmic management. If this clause survives committee, a Lithuanian employer with a fully remote team and an activity-tracking tool acquires disclosure and review obligations towards the people it tracks.

Remote Work Europe has followed the Platform Work Directive’s national transpositions for this reason. The Directive was drafted for riders and drivers, and member states keep discovering that the same provisions describe knowledge work done at a distance. Lithuania is the first to write that extension into the general Labour Code explicitly rather than leaving it to be argued.

What to watch

The 12 November plenary, and specifically whether paragraph 4 survives committee intact. Business bodies in other member states have successfully narrowed equivalent clauses to platform operators, and that is the obvious line of attack here.