International Journal of Human Research and Social Science Studies

The development of digital platforms has transformed the sharing economy from a mechanism for matching underutilized assets or capacity into a market structure in which platform enterprises can establish rules, process data, set prices, allocate transactions, rank participants, and restrict access. This study addresses three questions: which combinations of regulatory instruments are employed in the selected jurisdictions; what are the advantages, limitations, and institutional conditions of each combination; and which elements Vietnam may adopt after the 2025 Law on E-Commerce entered into force. The study applies a structured institutional comparison to the European Union, the United States, China, Singapore, and Australia. Its sources comprise selected academic studies, official legal and policy documents, and statistical evidence reviewed through 12 July 2026. The findings identify five combinations of regulatory instruments: multilevel regulation based on rights, risks, and data; decentralized experimentation at state and municipal levels; direct administrative regulation of data and algorithms; targeted protection linked to social security; and the establishment of minimum standards through industrial-relations institutions. The study further demonstrates that no model is optimal in every context; transferability depends on data capacity, decentralization, labour relations, and mechanisms for constraining public and private power. Its contribution lies in integrating sharing-economy regulation, platform governance, digital labour, data, algorithms, and competition within a comparative matrix. For Vietnam, the study proposes a three-tier policy architecture comprising general platform obligations, sector-specific regulation, and evaluated adaptive mechanisms, implemented through six groups of measures directly linked to the identified gaps.

sharing economy, platform economy, state regulation, data governance, algorithmic governance, platform labour, Vietnam

1. Basili, M., & Rossi, M. A. (2020). Platform-mediated reputation systems in the sharing economy and incentives to provide service quality: The case of ridesharing services. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 39, 100835. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.elerap.2019.100835
2. Calo, R., & Rosenblat, A. (2017). The taking economy: Uber, information, and power. Columbia Law Review, 117(6), 1623–1690. https://columbialawreview.org/content/the-taking-economy-uber-information-and-power/
3. Cohen, M., & Sundararajan, A. (2015). Self-regulation and innovation in the peer-to-peer sharing economy. University of Chicago Law Review Online, 82, 116–133. https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/uclrev_online/vol82/iss1/8/
4. Collier, R. B., Dubal, V. B., & Carter, C. L. (2018). Disrupting regulation, regulating disruption: The politics of Uber in the United States. Perspectives on Politics, 16(4), 919–937. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592718001093
5. Commonwealth of Australia. (2024). Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes No. 2) Act 2024. https://www.legislation.gov.au/C2024A00002/latest
6. Cyberspace Administration of China. (2021). Personal Information Protection Law of the People’s Republic of China. https://www.gov.cn/xinwen/2021-08/20/content_5632486.htm
7. Cyberspace Administration of China. (2022). Provisions on the administration of algorithm-generated recommendations for internet information services. https://www.cac.gov.cn/2022-01/04/c_1642894606364259.htm
8. Degen, K., & Gleiss, A. (2025). Time to break up? The case for tailor-made digital platform regulation based on platform-governance standard types. Electronic Markets, 35, Article 5. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12525-024-00747-7
9. Edelman, B. G., & Geradin, D. (2016). Efficiencies and regulatory shortcuts: How should we regulate companies like Airbnb and Uber? Stanford Technology Law Review, 19, 293–328. https://law.stanford.edu/publications/efficiencies-and-regulatory-shortcuts-how-should-we-regulate-companies-like-airbnb-and-uber/
10. European Union. (2022a). Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 on a Single Market for Digital Services. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2022/2065/oj
11. European Union. (2022b). Regulation (EU) 2022/1925 on contestable and fair markets in the digital sector. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2022/1925/oj
12. European Union. (2024a). Regulation (EU) 2024/1028 on data collection and sharing relating to short-term accommodation rental services. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1028/oj
13. European Union. (2024b). Directive (EU) 2024/2831 on improving working conditions in platform work. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2024/2831/oj
14. Eurostat. (2023). Employment statistics - digital platform workers: Results of the 2022 pilot survey. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Employment_statistics_-_digital_platform_workers
15. Fair Work Commission. (2026a). Regulated workers and businesses hub. https://www.fwc.gov.au/about-us/new-laws/regulated-workers-and-businesses-hub
16. Fair Work Commission. (2026b). Unfair deactivation for employee-like workers. https://www.fwc.gov.au/job-loss-or-dismissal/unfair-deactivation-or-termination-regulated-workers/unfair-deactivation
17. Fair Work Commission. (2026c). Decision and draft minimum standards order published in on-demand delivery case. https://www.fwc.gov.au/about-us/news-and-media/news/decision-and-draft-order-published-demand-case
18. Frenken, K., & Schor, J. (2017). Putting the sharing economy into perspective. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 23, 3–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2017.01.003
19. Gorwa, R. (2019). What is platform governance? Information, Communication & Society, 22(6), 854–871. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2019.1573914
20. Government of Vietnam. (2026). Decree No. 248/2026/ND-CP detailing several articles of the Law on E-Commerce. https://vanban.chinhphu.vn/?docid=218747&pageid=27160
21. Gurran, N., & Phibbs, P. (2017). When tourists move in: How should urban planners respond to Airbnb? Journal of the American Planning Association, 83(1), 80–92. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944363.2016.1249011
22. International Labour Organization. (2021). World employment and social outlook 2021: The role of digital labour platforms in transforming the world of work. https://www.ilo.org/publications/flagship-reports/role-digital-labour-platforms-transforming-world-work
23. International Labour Organization. (2026). Decent Work in the Platform Economy Convention, 2026 (No. 193). https://normlex.ilo.org/dyn/nrmlx_en/f?p=1000:12100:::::P12100_INSTRUMENT_ID:4496059
24. Möhlmann, M., Zalmanson, L., Henfridsson, O., & Gregory, R. W. (2021). Algorithmic management of work on online labor platforms: When matching meets control. MIS Quarterly, 45(4), 1999–2022. https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2021/15333
25. Miller, S. R. (2016). First principles for regulating the sharing economy. Harvard Journal on Legislation, 53, 147–202. https://journals.law.harvard.edu/jol/wp-content/uploads/sites/86/2016/02/HLL107_crop.pdf
26. Ministry of Planning and Investment. (2020). Report assessing the impact of selected major sharing-economy models on the economy. Hanoi.
27. Mosaad, M., Benoit, S., & Jayawardhena, C. (2023). The dark side of the sharing economy: A systematic literature review of externalities and regulatory strategies. Journal of Business Research, 168, 114186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2023.114186
28. National Assembly of Vietnam. (2023). Law No. 20/2023/QH15 on Electronic Transactions. https://vanban.chinhphu.vn/?docid=208421&pageid=27160
29. National Assembly of Vietnam. (2025). Law No. 122/2025/QH15 on E-Commerce. https://vanban.chinhphu.vn/?classid=1&docid=216503&pageid=27160&typegroupid=3
30. National Development and Reform Commission of China. (2021). Policy explanation on protecting workers in new forms of employment. https://www.ndrc.gov.cn/fggz/jyysr/jysrsbxf/202107/t20210728_1291917.html
31. New York City Mayor’s Office of Special Enforcement. (2026). Short-term rental registration and verification by booking services. https://www.nyc.gov/site/specialenforcement/registration-law/registration.page
32. Nieuwland, S., & van Melik, R. (2020). Regulating Airbnb: How cities deal with perceived negative externalities of short-term rentals. Current Issues in Tourism, 23(7), 811–825. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2018.1504899
33. Ogunde, F. (2024). Algorithmic management of platform workers: An examination of the Canadian and European approaches to regulation. European Labour Law Journal, 15(4), 803–821. https://doi.org/10.1177/20319525241239632
34. Prime Minister of Vietnam. (2019). Decision No. 999/QD-TTg approving the Scheme for Promoting the Sharing-Economy Model. https://vanban.chinhphu.vn/default.aspx?docid=197604&pageid=27160
35. Quattrone, G., Proserpio, D., Quercia, D., Capra, L., & Musolesi, M. (2016). Who benefits from the sharing economy of Airbnb? Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on World Wide Web, 1385–1394. https://doi.org/10.1145/2872427.2874815
36. Rahman, K. S., & Thelen, K. (2019). The rise of the platform business model and the transformation of twenty-first-century capitalism. Politics & Society, 47(2), 177–204. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032329219838932
37. Ranchordás, S. (2015). Does sharing mean caring? Regulating innovation in the sharing economy. Minnesota Journal of Law, Science & Technology, 16(1), 413–475. https://doi.org/10.24926/15529541.3715
38. Rani, U., Frosch, M., & Williams, M. (2026). Digital labour platforms: Number of platforms and workers. International Labour Organization. https://www.ilo.org/publications/digital-labour-platforms-number-platforms-and-workers
39. Rosin, A., & Parviainen, H. (2025). Improving transparency of algorithmic management in platform work. European Labour Law Journal, 16(4), 472–493. https://doi.org/10.1177/20319525251375023
40. Singapore Central Provident Fund Board. (2026). How much CPF contributions to pay platform workers. https://www.cpf.gov.sg/employer/platform-operators/obligations/how-much-cpf-contributions-to-pay-platform-workers
41. Singapore Ministry of Manpower. (2024). Commencement of Platform Workers Act from 1 January 2025. https://www.mom.gov.sg/newsroom/press-releases/2024/1217-commencement-of-platform-workers-act-from-1-jan-2025
42. Singapore Ministry of Manpower. (2025). Platform Workers Act: What it covers. https://www.mom.gov.sg/employment-practices/platform-workers-act/what-it-covers
43. Singapore Ministry of Manpower. (2026). Written answer to parliamentary question on platform workers’ CPF opt-in rate. https://www.mom.gov.sg/newsroom/parliament-questions-and-replies/2026/0112-written-answer-to-pq-on-pw-cpf-opt-in-rate
44. State of California. (2020a). Labor Code § 2775. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=2775.&lawCode=LAB
45. State of California. (2020b). Proposition 22: App-based drivers as contractors and labor policies initiative. https://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/propositions/22/
46. Supreme Court of California. (2024). Castellanos v. State of California, S279622. https://supreme.courts.ca.gov/case/s279622-castellanos-v-state-california-protect-app-based-drivers-and-services
47. Thelen, K. (2018). Regulating Uber: The politics of the platform economy in Europe and the United States. Perspectives on Politics, 16(4), 938–953. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592718001081
48. Veale, M., Silberman, M. S., & Binns, R. (2023). Fortifying the algorithmic management provisions in the proposed Platform Work Directive. European Labour Law Journal, 14(2), 308–332. https://doi.org/10.1177/20319525231167983
49. World Bank. (2023). Working without borders: The promise and peril of online gig work. https://doi.org/10.1596/40066