Clairvoyance platforms: trend towards uberization 

Clairvoyance, divinatory tarot, mediumship, guidance or astrology, there is no shortage of popular terms to talk about esotericism and spirituality.
From Instagram to Facebook via TikTok, Twitch or Youtube; you only need to take a look at the internet and social media to see the great success of the field of spirituality.
The Internet is fertile ground for those who want to expose their supposed gifts of clairvoyance or mediumship and the phenomenon of the Uberization of society contributes greatly to the expansion of so-called occult and/or spiritual practices on the Internet.

Remember that Uberization refers to a model of platformization of the economy allowing direct contact between service providers and applicants, instantly.
Applied to clairvoyance, the platforms connect consumers keen to know their future and interlocutors presented as experts in clairvoyance/mediumship/astrology…
This craze for spirituality and esotericism would not pose a major problem if cases of scams and abuse of weaknesses did not increase in recent years. However, as the National Institute of Divinatory Arts (INAD) attests, complaints of fraud are accumulating in the field.
Estimated figures reveal around 3 million French consumers of clairvoyance/mediumship services for a turnover of around 3 billion euros.
Given such a lucrative market and non-existent regulation of the profession, the abuses are numerous but above all dangerous for easily addicted consumers.
Far from being a simple passing fad, the platformization of clairvoyance/esotericism raises numerous moral, ethical and legal questions.
The operation of these clairvoyance platforms leaves us doubtful as to their professional legitimacy: are the professional skills of clairvoyant providers verified and verifiable?
These platforms also raise doubts about their legal status as well as that of the supposedly clairvoyant or medium service providers with whom they collaborate: Do the platforms act as principals of these service providers or are they their employers?
Let’s take stock to see clearly.

The expertise of clairvoyants: always uncertain data for the consumer

The lack of regulation of the profession makes it difficult to identify “false profiles” of clairvoyants.

Indeed, the legal vacuum in this area leaves great room for maneuver for certain platforms to affix the label of clairvoyants or mediums to the profiles they recruit.

You just need to go to the web pages of these platforms dedicated to recruitment to see this. The criteria sought to apply as a medium/clairvoyant are not very precise:
“ reside in France; be affiliated to the self-employed scheme; have a good quality landline; have an IT tool to plan and monitor statistics; have a real gift or know-how, empathy and professional conscience; answer all calls; have an average consultation time of at least 20 minutes.”
Even if some of these platformsmention the passing of a “clairvoyance test” to verify the skills of a candidate, it is impossible to determine the rigor and quality of these tests which remain very subjective from one platform to another.

So many criteria which do not convince of the expertise of a clairvoyance professional since any profile can correspond to these criteria if they believe they have a gift.
Furthermore, what can sometimes be interpreted as mediumistic abilities is very often only an ability to understand the psychological state of an interlocutor.

Listening to others and guessing their emotions is more about intuitive intelligence than mediumship or clairvoyance.
Consumer lucidity is therefore essential in order to understand that the expertise of the profiles working on the platforms always remains uncertain.

The status of clairvoyance platforms: principals or employers?

What the law says

Like all digital platforms, clairvoyance platforms are, in principle, simple intermediaries connecting clients and professionals.

When a company collaborates with an external service provider, it takes on the role of principal but does not impose directives on its service provider. There is no relationship of subordination between the two parties since the service provider is a self-employed person.

In other words, as self-employed, platform practitioners are free to organize their work and determine the terms and conditions under which the work will be carried out. They also freely set their prices and choose their customers.

In this sense, article L. 8221-6 of the Labor Code provides for a presumption of independence of natural persons registered in particular with the RCS.

Inconsistencies in service contracts between platforms and clairvoyance professionals

The service contracts signed between certain platforms and service providers are perplexing.

The contractual conditions of the service contract in fact seem to reveal a power of control exercised by certain platforms, as well as a strict setting of financial terms and a power of sanction normally attributed to an employer.

For example, these platforms do not hesitate to specify in the service contract, a schedule to which the service provider will be subject for the exercise of its clairvoyance activity.

Likewise, certain contracts provide for sanctions applicable to the service provider in the event of repeated absences without supporting documents such as termination of the contract, without remuneration or even the deduction of a sum of 2 euros from the service provider’s invoice in the event of calls not received by the psychic.

In addition, the applicable prices are determined by the platform without possible negotiation with the independent service provider.

The economic model then reflects an operation in which the professional is subject to directives limiting his autonomy, since in fact, he seems to carry out his activity in conditions similar to those of an employee.

Severe jurisprudence with regard to digital platforms exercising management power over their service providers

Case law shows that when the principal imposes a work organization on his service provider and controls the terms of performance of the services, he behaves like an employer.

In this case, we are talking about “disguised employment” leading to the sanction ofreclassification of the service contract into an employment contract.

In this sense, two recent judgments reinforce our doubts about the real working conditions of psychics/mediums with the platforms.

On November 28, 2018, the social chamber of the Court of Cassation considered that the existence of the powers of direction and control exercised by the platform over bicycle delivery workers, who have independent status, reveals a link of subordination between them leading to the reclassification of the service contract into an employment contract (Cass. soc November 28, 2018 n 17-20.079 Take eat easy).

Likewise, in a judgment of March 4, 2020 concerning the company UBER, the Court of Cassation reclassified the service contract between the independent driver and the company UBER due to the existence of a power of control and a disciplinary power exercised by the UBER platform over the driver (Cass, soc March 4, 2020 n 19-13.316).

Indeed, the judges noted that the Uber company could delete the driver’s account unilaterally and at any time; set prices or even force the driver to take passengers.

The consequences of reclassification are significant for the principal who risks:

On the civil side: payment of back wages, overtime, bonuses, compensation for notice, legal or conventional dismissal compensation, compensation for dismissal without real and serious cause, etc.

On the criminal level: sanctions for concealed work (article L8221-5 of the Labor Code).

Concerning Urssaf: adjustments to contributions and late payment increases for the entire duration of the employment relationship.

Finally, certain psychic profiles work under different pseudonyms, sometimes entering into contact with a consultant already met on another platform. It therefore becomes urgent to establish a regulatory framework for the profession in order to limit growing abuses and better protect consumers.

Myriam Lawyer

Reference texts:

article L. 8221-6 of the Labor Code Cass. soc November 28, 2018 n 17-20.079 Cass, soc March 4, 2020 n 19-13.316 article L8221-5 of the Labor Code