In Brazil's case, they don't need to do that. The law establishes that to be considered an employee/employer relationship, there needs to be a level of control

In Brazil's case, they don't need to do that. The law establishes that to be considered an employee/employer relationship, there needs to be a level of control from the employee's journey/hours, etc. That control simply does not exist between Uber and Uber drivers and that is why it is considered that they fail the legal employee definition. Obviously there is disagreement, as with everything in Law, but in this case you really need to bend the definition to make it fit the requirement. As I said before, I fully agree that Uber drivers and other gig workers need some protection, but I also fully agree with the ruling that they do not fit the current legal objective definition of a employee/employer relationship. It simply does not. We need new laws for those cases, or to change the legal definition (which is unlikely). Judges giving those rulings is basically having judges creating laws, which is not how it is supposed to be (by the way, Brazil does not have Common Law, so other rulings do not have the same power as in US/UK and other Common Law states).