• Home
  • Imprint
  • Privacy policy
  • Terms
  • Agile and lean law firm
  • Ideal partner
  • Contact
  • Videos
ITMediaLaw - Rechtsanwalt Marian Härtel
  • en English
  • de Deutsch
  • About lawyer Marian Härtel
    • About lawyer Marian Härtel
      • Ideal partner
      • About lawyer Marian Härtel
      • Video series – about me
      • Why a lawyer and business consultant?
      • Principles as a lawyer
      • Focus on start-ups
      • Nerd und Rechtsanwalt
      • Ideal partner
      • How can I help clients?
    • Über die Kanzlei
      • How clients benefit from my network of colleagues, partners and service providers
      • Quick and flexible access
      • Agile and lean law firm
      • Team: Saskia Härtel – WHO AM I?
      • Price overview
    • How can I help clients?
    • Sonstige Informationen
      • Einwilligungen widerrufen
      • Privatsphäre-Einstellungen ändern
      • Historie der Privatsphäre-Einstellungen
      • Privacy policy
    • Testimonials
    • Imprint
  • Leistungen
    • Focus areas of attorney Marian Härtel
      • Support with the foundation
      • Games law consulting
      • Advice in e-commerce
      • Support and advice of agencies
      • Legal advice in corporate law: from incorporation to structuring
      • Legal compliance and expert opinions
      • Streamers and influencers
      • Cryptocurrencies, Blockchain and Games
      • Outsourcing – for companies or law firms
    • Arbeitsschwerpunkte
      • Games and esports law
        • Esports. What is it?
      • Corporate law
      • IT/IP Law
      • Consulting for influencers and streamers
        • Influencer & Streamer
      • Contract review and preparation
      • DLT and Blockchain consulting
        • Blockchain Overview
      • Investment advice
      • AI and SaaS
  • Artikel/News
    • Langartikel / Guides
    • Law and computer games
    • Law and Esport
    • Law on the Internet
    • Blockchain and web law
    • Online retail
    • Data protection Law
    • Copyright
    • Competition law
    • Copyright
    • EU law
    • Law on the protection of minors
    • Labour law
    • Tax
    • Kanzlei News
    • Other
  • Videos/Podcasts
    • Videos
    • Podcast
      • ITMediaLaw Podcast
      • ITMediaLaw Kurz-Podcast
  • Knowledge base
  • Contact
Kurzberatung
  • About lawyer Marian Härtel
    • About lawyer Marian Härtel
      • Ideal partner
      • About lawyer Marian Härtel
      • Video series – about me
      • Why a lawyer and business consultant?
      • Principles as a lawyer
      • Focus on start-ups
      • Nerd und Rechtsanwalt
      • Ideal partner
      • How can I help clients?
    • Über die Kanzlei
      • How clients benefit from my network of colleagues, partners and service providers
      • Quick and flexible access
      • Agile and lean law firm
      • Team: Saskia Härtel – WHO AM I?
      • Price overview
    • How can I help clients?
    • Sonstige Informationen
      • Einwilligungen widerrufen
      • Privatsphäre-Einstellungen ändern
      • Historie der Privatsphäre-Einstellungen
      • Privacy policy
    • Testimonials
    • Imprint
  • Leistungen
    • Focus areas of attorney Marian Härtel
      • Support with the foundation
      • Games law consulting
      • Advice in e-commerce
      • Support and advice of agencies
      • Legal advice in corporate law: from incorporation to structuring
      • Legal compliance and expert opinions
      • Streamers and influencers
      • Cryptocurrencies, Blockchain and Games
      • Outsourcing – for companies or law firms
    • Arbeitsschwerpunkte
      • Games and esports law
        • Esports. What is it?
      • Corporate law
      • IT/IP Law
      • Consulting for influencers and streamers
        • Influencer & Streamer
      • Contract review and preparation
      • DLT and Blockchain consulting
        • Blockchain Overview
      • Investment advice
      • AI and SaaS
  • Artikel/News
    • Langartikel / Guides
    • Law and computer games
    • Law and Esport
    • Law on the Internet
    • Blockchain and web law
    • Online retail
    • Data protection Law
    • Copyright
    • Competition law
    • Copyright
    • EU law
    • Law on the protection of minors
    • Labour law
    • Tax
    • Kanzlei News
    • Other
  • Videos/Podcasts
    • Videos
    • Podcast
      • ITMediaLaw Podcast
      • ITMediaLaw Kurz-Podcast
  • Knowledge base
  • Contact
ITMediaLaw - Rechtsanwalt Marian Härtel
Home Labour law

BGH clarifies the distinction between pseudo self-employed and employees: An urgent warning for startups, game developers, esports teams and agencies

26. May 2023
in Labour law, Tax
Reading Time: 6 mins read
0 0
A A
0
business 6315189 1920
Key Facts
  • A new BGH ruling emphasizes the risks of bogus self-employment for employers and bogus self-employed persons.
  • Industries such as game development and esports are particularly susceptible to the confusion between self-employed and employees.
  • The ruling requires a clear separation of the attractiveness of self-employed and salaried employees in order to avoid legal consequences.
  • The freelancer's autonomy is decisive for the correct classification and should be set out in the contract.
  • Ignoring social security contributions by employers can have serious legal and criminal consequences.
  • Contractual regulations must make a clear distinction between the client and the freelancer in order to avoid bogus self-employment.
  • Regular reviews ensure that working conditions comply with contractual requirements and that bogus self-employment is avoided.

A new BGH ruling confirms the risks of bogus self-employment – be prepared

Content Hide
1. A new BGH ruling confirms the risks of bogus self-employment – be prepared
2. What is bogus self-employment and who can it affect?
3. The current BGH ruling and its effects
4. The most important findings of the BGH ruling
5. How to avoid bogus self-employment
6. Conclusion

In recent years, I have repeatedly pointed out the risks that pseudo-self-employment can entail, both for employers and for “pseudo-self-employed” persons themselves. Industries such as game development, Esports, agencies and startups are particularly vulnerable to these risks. The nature of these industries – often characterized by flexible work structures, project-based assignments, and frequent use of freelancers – increases the likelihood that the lines between self-employed and employed will blur.

For example, in my 2020 article Freelancer: danger of client’s claim to enrichment in case of bogus self-employment, I warned about the legal complications that can arise when bogus self-employment is present.

In another article, Liability Risks for Esports Teams When Working with Bogus Self-Employed Players, I specifically addressed the Esports industry and the potential risks they could face when dealing with bogus self-employed players.

Now, a recently published ruling by the German Federal Court of Justice (BGH) underscores the concerns I shared. It highlights the need for a precise demarcation between the self-employed and the employed, and underscores the potential legal and financial consequences of not drawing this line clearly.

What is bogus self-employment and who can it affect?

Bogus self-employment is a condition in which a person formally acts as an independent contractor, but in practice fulfills the role and duties of an employee. This employment relationship can result in significant legal and financial consequences for both the client and the bogus self-employed person, including but not limited to labor law, social law, social security law and tax law.

New forms of work, such as the gig economy, have brought new challenges in distinguishing between pseudo self-employment and regular employment. Platform-based work, where small jobs are given to freelancers on a short-term basis – such as delivery services like Takeaway.com and its subsidiary Lieferando in Germany, or driving services like Uber and MyTaxi – can also contribute to pseudo self-employment.

In Germany, pseudo-self-employment is regarded by the legislator as a form of undeclared work, as additional duties, in particular employer contributions, may be incurred as a result of the determination of dependent employment. However, the distinction between permissible self-employment and employment subject to social insurance contributions is not always clear-cut due to fuzzy legal terms and different interpretations by social insurance agencies and courts. Only in cases of gross misuse is it possible to make a reliable distinction in advance at the start of the contract.

While the concept of bogus self-employment is gradually fading into the background in the political debate away from those affected, another term has gained acceptance: the abuse of contracts for work and services. Since around 2012, this term has been increasingly used in the political debate in Germany and was also part of the 2013 coalition agreement between the CDU/CSU and the SPD. The focus here is primarily on the relocation of former core activities of a company to other companies, often accompanied by the mass relocation of former employees to these work contract companies.

These developments show that in the modern working world it is becoming increasingly important to be clear about the distinction between the self-employed and employees. This is particularly relevant for industries such as game development, esports, agencies and many startups that often work with freelancers and therefore run the risk of blurring the line to bogus self-employment. As I discussed in my previous posts, the consequences can be significant.

The current BGH ruling and its effects

The recent ruling by the Federal Court of Justice sets new standards in the demarcation between pseudo self-employment and regular employment. Although the ruling was published in a criminal context, it relates to the “withholding and embezzlement of remuneration” (Section 266a of the Criminal Code), a law that is relevant to all employers.

The ruling focuses on the “overall picture of the work performance”, which is decisive for distinguishing between so-called pseudo-self-employed attorneys and freelancers of a law firm. This approach can also be applied to other professions. If the criteria of being bound by instructions and integration lose their discriminatory power and significance due to the specific nature of the activity, the focus should be on the entrepreneur’s own entrepreneurial risk and the type of remuneration agreed.

The ruling also makes it clear that contribution payments by undeclared workers and illegal employees on the basis of an agreement reached with the employer do not automatically establish the factuality of Section 266a para. 1 and 2 StGB can be omitted. Rather, these payments should be considered at the penalty assessment level.

It is important to emphasize that this interpretation of the ruling focuses on the general delineation and not on specific situations or industries. Each case of bogus self-employment is unique and must be assessed individually.

However, the ruling underscores the need for employers and principals to carefully consider whether their employment relationships comply with the requirements of the law. Otherwise, they can expect significant legal and financial consequences.

The demarcation between the self-employed and employees is becoming increasingly difficult, especially in industries such as game development, Esports, agencies and startups. However, the ruling of the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) provides important guidelines that companies can use to minimize legal risks.

The most important findings of the BGH ruling

The recent ruling of the German Federal Supreme Court (BGH) provides a thorough analysis on the distinction between pseudo self-employed and regular employees. It emphasizes the importance of carefully examining actual labor relations and highlights the role of several key factors.

Firstly, the BGH attaches great importance to inclusion in the company organization. A person who is to be classified as self-employed should generally have a high degree of autonomy and flexibility with respect to the performance of his or her work. However, if it is determined that the person is firmly integrated into the organizational structure of the client and works in a manner similar to an employee, this could be an indication of pseudo self-employment.

Second, the ruling emphasizes the importance of the principal’s authorizing powers. An independent contractor usually makes independent decisions about how to perform his or her work. If, on the other hand, the client gives detailed instructions on how to perform the work while retaining control over the work process, this could be another indication of pseudo-self-employment.

Another main focus of the BGH ruling is the correct calculation and payment of social security contributions. If a principal is found to be withholding or misappropriating these contributions, it will be considered a serious violation by the court. This could result in both civil and criminal penalties for the principal, including possible fines and imprisonment.

Overall, the ruling highlights the complexity of the distinction between pseudo self-employment and regular employment and underscores the need to examine this issue carefully, taking into account all relevant factors. It sends a clear signal to all employers that they must closely scrutinize their employment relationships and ensure that they comply with legal requirements.

How to avoid bogus self-employment

The risk of bogus self-employment can be significantly reduced if clear and unambiguous contracts are drawn up that carefully define the nature and conditions of the collaboration. However, it is not only the drafting of the contract that is crucial, but also ensuring that the actual working conditions match those specified in the contract.

A contract negotiated for freelance work should explicitly state that the freelancer has a high degree of autonomy and flexibility with respect to the performance of his or her work. It should also list the specific services or projects that the freelancer will perform, making it clear that the freelancer has control over the process and outcome of that work.

In addition, it is important that the contract clearly distinguishes between the client and the freelancer. This means that the client should not be referred to as the “employer” and the freelancer should not be referred to as the “employee”. There should also be no clauses that entitle the client to give detailed instructions on how to perform the work or to retain control over the work process.

After the contract has been concluded, both parties should pay careful attention to ensure that the actual working conditions correspond to the contractual terms. This means that the freelancer is actually working autonomously and independently, and that the client is not trying to take control of the work process or give detailed instructions on how to perform the work.

It is also important to regularly check that the actual working conditions continue to comply with the contractual terms. This can be done through regular reviews and discussions between the parties. If working conditions change over time, it may be necessary to revise the contract to ensure that it continues to meet legal requirements.

By following these steps, you can significantly reduce the risk of bogus self-employment and ensure that your employment relationships comply with legal requirements.

Conclusion

The current case law of the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) underlines and deepens my long-standing warnings about the risks of bogus self-employment. I would particularly like to point out startups, esports teams, website owners, and other similarly structured organizations that may underestimate or overlook tax and social security law requirements. The urgency of carefully reviewing and, if necessary, adjusting contracts and practices cannot be overstated to avoid potential legal and financial consequences.

It is critical that directors and officers in particular recognize the potential magnitude of a criminal conviction in the context of bogus self-employment. Such a conviction can have serious consequences, including the inability to ever be self-sufficient again. Therefore, this issue should be treated with the highest priority and caution.

It should not be forgotten that running a website or portal, even if it was originally started as a hobby, can lead to legal obligations once it reaches a certain size and profitability. It is therefore advisable to seek professional advice in good time in order to minimize the risk of bogus self-employment and the associated consequences.

In this case, forewarned is definitely forearmed – especially when it comes to the complex and nuanced topic of bogus self-employment. Don’t hesitate to contact legal counsel if you need help with the delineation process or have additional questions about this topic. Careful planning and preparation can save you from serious consequences.

Tags: AgenturenAnalyseBghCase lawCivil lawContract creationCustomizationDevelopmentEntscheidungenEsportEsportsFederal courtFreelancerGame developerHaftungLabour lawLawsStartupsVerträgeWorkers

Beliebte Beträge

Esport: How long can a player contract run?

Esport: How long can a player contract run?
19. June 2019

In the context of the questions about transfer fees or talent promotion, professional teams or agencies in esport always ask...

Read moreDetails

As a teenager, make e-sports men/streamers self-employed?

As a teenager, make e-sports men/streamers self-employed?
2. January 2020

The industry of streamers and e-sports enthusiasts is very young compared to other industries and therefore also for lawyers and...

Read moreDetails

Tfue vs. FaZe: What does German law say about this?

7. June 2019

Tfue vs. FaZe on everyone's mouth The subject of Tfue's lawsuit against FaZe (I wrote briefly about it in this...

Read moreDetails

Non-compete clauses in start-up contracts: How founders and employees are meaningfully bound

Non-compete clauses in start-up contracts: How founders and employees are meaningfully bound
1. May 2025

Start-ups and young technology companies often depend on special business ideas, expertise and customer relationships. The interest in protecting this...

Read moreDetails

Social media accounts as a company: who keeps followers when employees change?

Social media accounts as a company: who keeps followers when employees change?
4. May 2025

Social media have become valuable assets for modern companies. Followers, profiles and reach can determine customer relationships, employer image and...

Read moreDetails

AI-supported applicant selection and legal risks in German labor law

AI-supported applicant selection and legal risks in German labor law
3. May 2025

As a lawyer specializing in advising start-ups, I have first-hand experience of the growing importance of artificial intelligence (AI) in...

Read moreDetails

Employee participation in early-stage start-ups: work for equity from a legal perspective

Employee participation in early-stage start-ups: work for equity from a legal perspective
8. April 2025

In the early phase of a start-up, there is often a lack of liquidity to pay salaries in line with...

Read moreDetails

Employer may provide payslips digitally

Freelancer – Danger of the client’s claim to enrichment in the case of bogus self-employment
30. January 2025

In accordance with Section 108 (1) sentence 1 of the German Industrial Code (GewO), the employer must provide the employee...

Read moreDetails

Avoid bogus self-employment: What startups need to consider when working with freelancers

Job offer: Trainee lawyer or student wanted for editorial work
18. December 2024

Many start-ups rely on collaboration with freelancers in the start-up and growth phase. They offer flexibility, specific expertise and are...

Read moreDetails
  • Home
  • Imprint
  • Privacy policy
  • Terms
  • Agile and lean law firm
  • Ideal partner
  • Contact
  • Videos
Marian Härtel, Rathenaustr. 58a, 14612 Falkensee, info@itmedialaw.com

Marian Härtel - Rechtsanwalt für IT-Recht, Medienrecht und Startups, mit einem Fokus auf innovative Geschäftsmodelle, Games, KI und Finanzierungsberatung.

Welcome Back!

Login to your account below

Forgotten Password? Sign Up

Create New Account!

Fill the forms below to register

All fields are required. Log In

Retrieve your password

Please enter your username or email address to reset your password.

Log In
  • Contact
  • Leistungen
    • Support with the foundation
    • Focus areas of attorney Marian Härtel
    • Consulting for influencers and streamers
    • Advice in e-commerce
    • DLT and Blockchain consulting
    • Games law consulting
    • Support and advice of agencies
    • Legal advice in corporate law: from incorporation to structuring
    • Cryptocurrencies, Blockchain and Games
    • Investment advice
    • Booking as speaker
    • Legal compliance and expert opinions
    • Legal advice in corporate law: from incorporation to structuring
    • Contract review and preparation
  • About lawyer Marian Härtel
    • About lawyer Marian Härtel
    • Agile and lean law firm
    • Focus on start-ups
    • Principles as a lawyer
    • The everyday life of an IT lawyer
    • How can I help clients?
    • Why a lawyer and business consultant?
    • Focus on start-ups
    • How can I help clients?
    • Team: Saskia Härtel – WHO AM I?
    • Testimonials
    • Imprint
  • Videos
    • Video series – about me
    • Information videos – about Marian Härtel
    • Videos on services
    • Blogpost – individual videos
    • Shorts
    • Third-party videos
    • Podcast format
    • Other videos
  • Knowledge base
  • Podcast
  • Blogposts
    • Lange Artikel / Ausführungen
    • Law on the Internet
    • Online retail
    • Law and computer games
    • Law and Esport
    • Blockchain and web law
    • Data protection Law
    • Labour law
    • EU law
    • Corporate
    • Competition law
    • Copyright
    • Tax
    • Internally
    • Other
  • en English
  • de Deutsch
Kostenlose Kurzberatung