I think GP is arguing that (in a lot of jurisdictions) > the norm is to be legal and unregulated doesn't hold for anything that touches employment; as soon as

I think GP is arguing that (in a lot of jurisdictions) > the norm is to be legal and unregulated doesn't hold for anything that touches employment; as soon as there is deemed by the courts to be an employer--employee relation, all the existing statutes and case law are applicable, so without carve-outs for this specific type of employment it is automatically regulated. Assuming the above, if the employment is _treated_ as though it is not subject to regulations, despite this not being the case, then presumably the law is being broken somewhere. A sibling comment makes the point that if the legal system is underdeveloped, then the it may not be able to capture all the instances of employment that would otherwise fall under regulation.