ClearLaunch
Feature CheckerRegulations & PoliciesEnforcementRadarVendorsChangelogGuides
FAQ
← All Controls

ABC-test evidence file

abc-test-evidenceDomain: worker-classificationType: policy

Description

California's ABC test (codified in AB5, with 200+ industry-specific exemptions added by AB2257 and Prop 22) is the contemporary standard for worker classification in California and a growing list of other US states. The evidentiary record demonstrates, for each worker classified as a contractor, that all three prongs are met: A) the worker is free from control and direction in the performance of work, B) the work is outside the usual course of the hiring entity's business, and C) the worker is customarily engaged in an independently established trade or occupation of the same nature. Failing any prong defaults the worker to employee classification, with retroactive wage-and-hour, payroll-tax, and §226.8 misclassification exposure (typical penalty range and PAGA representative-action exposure escalate with willfulness findings; consult counsel for case-specific exposure). Prong B is the litigation-active piece; courts have read "usual course of business" broadly, which is why most platform-mediated work has converged on either employee classification or one of the AB2257 or Prop 22 exemptions rather than relying on a contested ABC defense.

Applicability

Applies when: business participants include individual-workers AND markets include california or US.

How predicates are evaluated

Required by (5 regulations)

  • CA AB5

    Cal. Lab. Code §2775 — document control freedom, outside-usual-course-of-business, independent-trade evidence.

    Cal. Lab. Code §2775

  • CA AB2257

    Cal. Lab. Code §§2776-2785 — exemption-applicability evidence.

    Cal. Lab. Code §§2776-2785

  • MA Question 3 / IC Statute

    Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 149 §148B — Sebago v Boston Cab Dispatch (2014) interpretive framework.

    Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 149 §148B

  • NJ Misclassification

    N.J. Stat. Ann. §43:21-19(i)(6) — Hargrove v Sleepy's (NJ Supreme Court 2015) framework.

    N.J. Stat. Ann. §43:21-19(i)(6)

  • FLSA Economic Realities

    29 CFR §795.110 — six-factor evidence per engagement.

    29 CFR §795.110

Fulfilled by (1)

  • In-house build · high effort

ClearLaunch does not accept payment from vendors. Methodology.

Evidence formats

  • ABC-test evidence file (per-worker or per-cohort)
  • control-test memo
  • usual-course-of-business memo

ClearLaunch provides legal information based on publicly available regulatory sources. It does not constitute legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction before making compliance decisions.

ClearLaunch

Regulatory intelligence for people who ship products.

Tools
Feature CheckerRegulations & PoliciesVendorsGuidesFor LegalFor EngineeringFor ExecutivesFor Investors
About
AboutMethodologyChangelogFAQRegulatory UpdatesClearLaunch on LinkedIn
Legal
Terms of ServicePrivacy PolicyHow we handle your dataCoverage scope & limitations

Built by Neel Patel, in-house game counsel. Games touch more compliance domains at once than anything else in tech. That's what ClearLaunch was designed around.

ClearLaunch provides legal information based on publicly available regulatory sources. It does not constitute legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction before making compliance decisions. Operated by a Washington-licensed attorney. Not licensed in California or other US states. ClearLaunch provides legal information; consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction. Data reviewed through March 2026. Methodology

© 2026 ClearLaunch · Terms · Privacy