Tens of thousands of people registered as self-employed workers in Spain are actually employees in the eyes of the law, it has emerged.

Many businesses prefer to hire self-employed workers because it costs them less, mainly as they don’t have to match their social security contributions alongside their salaries.

However, if the worker is only working for them, then they should, in most cases, be hired with a formal contract.

But some bosses prefer to avoid this due to a number of reasons, including how difficult it can be to fire contracted workers.

The Labour Inspectorate identified 47,143 so-called falsos autonomos, or bogus self-employed workers, during 2025, according to figures from the Ministry of Labour.

According to business publication Diario A y E, the discoveries came during some 1.2 million inspections and other enforcement actions, including 281,614 visits to businesses.

Spain’s Labour Inspectorate’s 2025-2027 Strategic Plan envisages greater use of large-scale cross-checking of tax and Social Security data to identify businesses using autonomos to perform jobs that should legally be carried out by employees.

The issue is particularly relevant in Spain, where huge numbers of freelancers and small business owners operate under the country’s autonomo system.

But simply being registered with the RETA self-employed regime, issuing invoices and having a commercial contract does not automatically mean someone is genuinely self-employed.

Instead, inspectors look at what the working relationship is actually like.

As labour lawyer and university professor Luis San Jose puts it: ‘In employment law, the reality of how someone works matters more than the name given to the contract.’

What is a ‘false autonomo’?

The fundamental questions are who controls the work and who takes the financial risk.

A genuinely self-employed person normally runs their own economic activity, has meaningful control over how they organise their work and bears the risks associated with running that business.

But someone can be registered as an autonomo, pay their own Social Security contributions and issue perfectly legitimate-looking invoices while effectively operating as an employee.

Inspectors describe two particularly important concepts: dependencia and ajenidad.

Dependencia – dependency – concerns whether the person works within somebody else’s organisation and under their direction.

Ajenidad concerns whether the clients, revenue and economic results effectively belong to the company, while the worker simply receives payment for carrying out the work without assuming the corresponding business risk.

No single factor necessarily decides the case.

Instead, inspectors examine the overall reality of the relationship.

The sectors under the microscope

There is no official ranking of which industries have the most bogus self-employed workers.

However, labour inspectors and employment lawyers have identified a series of sectors in which the problem repeatedly appears.

One of the best-known is digital platforms, delivery services and couriers.

A delivery driver may provide their own vehicle and appear to decide when they work. But there can still be evidence of an employment relationship when a platform allocates orders, sets prices, evaluates workers or controls how the service is performed through an app or algorithm.

Transport and logistics is another area of concern.

Owning a vehicle and registering as an autonomo does not automatically turn a driver into an independent business owner. Inspectors may examine who obtains the customers, determines routes and prices, organises the service and absorbs losses when a journey is unprofitable.

Another potentially affected industry is media and journalism.

Experts specifically identify contributors, reporters, journalists, photographers, designers and other audiovisual professionals.

Warning signs can emerge when a supposed freelancer regularly invoices the same media company but receives continuous assignments, attends meetings, uses company systems and remains subject to ongoing editorial direction.

Private education is another area where the distinction can become blurred.

A teacher may invoice an academy for individual classes, but the relationship could potentially be considered employment if the academy obtains the students, determines prices and timetables, establishes the curriculum and assessment system and provides the facilities.

Similar questions arise in private clinics, where dentists, physiotherapists, psychologists and other professionals may formally operate as autonomos.

If the clinic controls the patients, appointments and prices, provides the facilities and collects payments before giving the practitioner an agreed fee or percentage, there may be indications that the professional is not genuinely operating an independent business.

Lawyers, architects, IT professionals, engineers, consultants and marketing specialists can also fall into the grey area.

Having specialist knowledge and considerable freedom over how a task is performed does not necessarily amount to running an independent business.

Exclusivity, permanent integration into a company’s team, corporate email accounts, hierarchical managers and a largely fixed monthly payment can all point towards an employment relationship.

Hairdressers and beauty professionals, as well as salespeople and financial and property agents, are also identified as areas where inspectors may need to establish who is genuinely organising the work.

The questions inspectors ask

When determining whether someone is genuinely self-employed, inspectors don’t stop at their paperwork.

They can examine who determines their hours and working methods, whether they can reject assignments, who provides their equipment, how they are paid and whether they operate in practice like other employees.

The use of company computers, phones, email accounts and internal applications can all provide evidence that a supposed freelancer is integrated into someone else’s business.

Receiving a regular payment from a single client can also be an indicator, particularly if the worker does not determine their own prices or bill the ultimate customer themselves.

Attending company meetings or training, following internal procedures and being supervised by managers can provide further evidence.

And crucially, inspectors look at who bears the commercial risk – who finds customers, sets prices, collects payments and takes the financial hit when things go wrong.

Labour inspector Jesus Prieto summarised the issue with a simple question inspectors can ask themselves: what business would this person have tomorrow if their supposed client disappeared?

‘If the answer is none, we are not dealing with a self-employed worker,’ he said.

Why do companies use false autonomos?

The financial incentive can be considerable.

According to Prieto, presenting an employee as an independent contractor means the worker pays their own autonomo contributions, while the company avoids costs associated with paid holidays, extra salary payments and dismissal.

But getting the classification wrong can prove expensive.

A recent case before the High Court of Justice of Andalucia (TSJA) involved a financial intermediary who had formally been presented as a collaborator and was paid commissions.

Despite carrying out some of her work away from the office, the court found that the company directed her work and that she did not bear the commercial risk expected of an independent professional.

The company was ordered to pay her €10,700 in salary differences, plus interest.

However, working in one of the sectors identified above does not automatically make someone a bogus autonomo.

There are genuinely independent journalists, delivery drivers, lawyers, teachers, healthcare professionals and consultants throughout Spain.

The determining factor is not someone’s profession – or even what their contract calls them – but who really controls the work, benefits from its results and assumes the business risk.