Spain’s 2025 Interns’ Statute: Analyzing the Economic Fallout and the Clash of Stakeholders (SMEs, Unions, and Universities)

The Spanish Cabinet approved a draft bill known as the “Interns’ Statute” on November 4, 2025. Championed by the Ministry of Labor and Social Economy, the new rule is being presented as “a labor reform for the new generations,” designed primarily to eradicate the “fake intern” phenomenon and prohibit the use of students to replace regular employees.

To achieve this, the Statute introduces two key mechanisms: a mandate for companies to reimburse students for food, lodging, or transportation expenses, and a drastic hardening of the sanctions regime, with fines reaching as high as €225,018.

This analysis concludes that while the diagnosis of the problem (labor fraud) is correct, the proposed solution is economically unviable and was negotiated without consulting crucial stakeholders. The new obligations are piled on top of the already-existing requirement for companies to pay Social Security contributions for all interns (in effect since January 2024), creating a “double burden” that SMEs and freelancers reject as “regulatory suffocation.”

More critically, the law ignores the funding of its own measures. The Conference of Rectors of Spanish Universities (CRUE) reports it was not consulted and warns of a systemic risk: just as universities were forced to assume the multi-million euro cost of the 2024 Social Security contributions when companies refused to pay, this new “expense reimbursement” will de facto fall on the “battered accounts” of public universities.

The Statute thus emerges with frontal opposition from employer associations (CEOE, CEPYME), universities (CRUE), and the parliamentary opposition (PP), while also exposing internal friction within the governing coalition. Consequently, its parliamentary viability is considered practically nil.

For SMEs and freelancers, the most immediate risk is not this proposed Statute, but non-compliance with the regulations already in effect: the mandatory Social Security contributions from 2024 and the growing scrutiny from the Labor Inspectorate regarding the “presumption of employment status.”

The New Regulatory Framework: What Changes with the Interns’ Statute

From Union Agreement to a ‘First Reading’ Approval

On November 4, 2025, the Spanish Cabinet gave its “first reading” approval to the “Draft Bill for the statute of persons in non-labor practical training in the business environment.” This initiative, led by Second Vice President and Minister of Labor Yolanda Díaz, was described by her department as “the labor reform for the new generations in our country.”

The text’s approval is notably delayed. The draft bill is based on an agreement the Ministry of Labor sealed exclusively with the CCOO and UGT trade unions back in 2023. The two-year gap between that agreement and its arrival at the Cabinet is not a typical delay. This lapse highlights the profound “internal discrepancies” the bill has generated within the governing coalition, specifically between the PSOE and Sumar parties.

In fact, the approval was only a “first reading.” This is a preliminary step in the Spanish legislative process. It means the draft bill is not yet sent to Congress; it must first undergo a multi-month period to gather mandatory reports from other bodies before returning to the Cabinet for a “second reading” and final approval as a government bill. This lengthy process, which is not being fast-tracked, suggests the initial approval was more of a political maneuver by the Sumar wing of the government to satisfy its union allies than a cohesive legislative initiative with internal consensus.

Declared Objective: The End of the ‘Fake Intern’

The explicit, central objective of the Statute is to clearly define the border between a training activity and a standard employment relationship. In Minister Díaz’s words, internships must be “simply for learning, for training,” and “not to replace workers at companies.”

This legislation is a direct response to a historic demand from unions, which celebrate the new rule as the end of student “exploitation” and their use as “free labor.” Labor organizations have been highly active in denouncing this practice. The UGT union has estimated that the fraudulent use of interns has allowed companies to save over €1.143 billion in Social Security contributions. For its part, the CCOO union calculates that approximately 500,000 students in Spain participate in internships each year, a volume that complicates oversight and facilitates fraud.

This context explains the Statute’s nature: it is, in essence, a law of inspection and penalties rather than one of educational promotion. Its articles focus on the “presumption of employment status in cases of fraud” and an explicit ban on assigning students tasks unrelated to their training plan, such as replacing staff on vacation.

However, the law’s design reveals a fundamental mismatch. The government is attempting to solve a labor fraud problem (workforce substitution, which is the Labor Inspectorate’s jurisdiction) using an academic regulation tool (the internship agreement). This approach is the primary cause of the conflict with universities. The Ministry has created a regulation that imposes costs and bureaucracy not just on the offending company, but also on the entity managing the internship (the university), which is now caught in a labor battle that is not its own. By legislating without consulting the academic community, the Ministry has missed its target: to punish fraudulent companies, it has burdened the necessary, non-profit academic intermediary with costs and liability.

New Quantitative and Qualitative Limits

To make fraud control tangible, the draft bill establishes a series of objective, measurable limits designed to assist inspectors:

1. Hour Limit: The law directly targets extracurricular internships, which are most susceptible to concealing employment. The Statute limits them to a maximum of 480 total hours, or 15% of the total credit hours of the degree.
2. Student-to-Staff Ratio: A general cap is set: the number of trainees cannot exceed 20% of the company’s total workforce. Specific ratios are also set for small and medium-sized enterprises:
   • Companies with 1 to 10 employees: 1 intern.
   • Companies with 11 to 30 employees: 2 interns.
   • Companies with 31 to 59 employees: 3 interns.
3. Tutoring Limit: “Adequate” tutoring is required, and the role of the company tutor is regulated. Crucially, a single tutor may not oversee more than five students simultaneously.

These numerical limits (20% of staff, 1:5 tutor ratio) are the law’s most potent legal tools, as they offer the Labor Inspectorate objective “red flags” that facilitate a “presumption of employment status.”

Nonetheless, these limits create indirect costs. For a freelancer or an SME, the 1-tutor-per-5-students limit represents a “hidden” opportunity cost that may be more dissuasive than the direct payments. The business owner must assign one of their most qualified employees (the only one capable of being a tutor) to supervisory duties. The time that senior employee spends on training is time they are no longer 100% productive or billable. This unquantified opportunity cost discourages quality mentorship and, by extension, the offering of internships.

The Sanctions Regime: A Drastic Hardening

The Statute explicitly reinforces the role of the Labor and Social Security Inspectorate (ITSS) in overseeing compliance. It does so by creating a specific sanctions regime within the Law on Infractions and Sanctions in the Social Order (LISOS).

The most publicized measure has been the establishment of fines up to €225,018 for “very serious” infractions. Equating the maximum penalty for internship fraud with the highest LISOS penalties (typically reserved for large-scale fraud, like “fake freelancers”) is a statement of intent: the government is legally equating the “fake intern” with the most severe forms of undeclared labor.

However, for the average SME or freelancer, the €225,018 figure is largely media noise. The real legal and financial risk is not that maximum fine, but the application of the “presumption of employment status.”

The true danger for a small business is this: if a labor inspector determines that a student was performing structural tasks and replacing an employee, they will declare that person was an employee from day one, not an intern. In that scenario, the SME will likely not face the €225,000 fine, but something economically worse: the obligation to retroactively pay all unpaid wages (calculated according to the relevant collective bargaining agreement) and all Social Security contributions (at 100%, with no subsidies) plus all corresponding penalties and interest. This claim for months or even years of a “fake internship” is the real deterrent and the one that could jeopardize a small business’s viability.

Analysis of the Direct Economic Impact on SMEs and Freelancers

The ‘Double Burden’: Combining Contributions (2024) and Reimbursement (2025)

The article that motivated this analysis, which claims the law will “skyrocket costs” for freelancers and SMEs, is based on the accumulation of two economic burdens imposed in a short period.

1. Burden 1 (Currently in Effect): Social Security contributions for all interns (paid or unpaid), mandatory since January 1, 2024.
2. Burden 2 (Proposed): The new obligation to reimburse expenses introduced by the Interns’ Statute.

The business community’s indignation is not just about the amount, but about the superposition of regulations in an already complex economic context marked by minimum wage hikes, mandatory digitalization, and rising contribution costs.

Cost 1: Social Security Contributions (Effective Since January 2024)

Since January 1, 2024 (under Royal Decree-Law 2/2023), it has been mandatory to register all students in internships with Social Security, regardless of whether they are paid.

For unpaid internships (the vast majority), this contribution is 95% subsidized. The actual cost is therefore minimal. The daily contribution amounts to €2.36 for common contingencies and €0.29 for professional contingencies. This translates to a maximum monthly cost of approximately €60.76 and an average annual cost per intern estimated at around €200.

As some sources define it, the direct cost is “infinitesimal.” The real impact for a freelancer or SME is not the cash, but the administrative burden. The employer must manage Social Security registrations and de-registrations for each student and, furthermore, file and pay the contributions quarterly. This adds bureaucracy, accounting costs, and management complexity that did not exist before.

But analyzing this 2024 law is crucial because it serves as a failed experiment that predicts the failure of the 2025 Statute. The 2024 contribution law created a payment obligation without a clear funding mechanism. It stated the payment was the responsibility of the “entity financing the program” or, failing that, the company. In practice, most companies and public institutions refused to take on this new cost.

To avoid a system collapse (preventing students from graduating) and to “provide peace of mind,” the universities (CRUE) were forced to assume the payment. Spain’s public universities are now shouldering an estimated €9 million annually, plus the “enormous” administrative burden of managing 400,000 internships, “without it being their direct responsibility.” The 2025 Statute repeats this exact error: it imposes a new cost (expense reimbursement) assuming companies will pay, when the 2024 experience proves they will not, and the bill will once again fall to the universities.

Cost 2: The New ‘Expense Reimbursement’ (The Heart of the Statute)

The real cost increase introduced by the 2025 draft bill is the “expense reimbursement.” The text requires the company to compensate “a minimum amount” for expenses incurred by the student, such as transportation, lodging, or food.

It is critical to clarify that this is not a salary. The Statute does not mandate a wage for the internship.

This measure’s primary problem is its dangerous vagueness. The rule does not set an amount, only a concept (“reimburse”). This creates total legal uncertainty for an SME. How much is “sufficient” to “cover” the cost? Must the company pay for a transit pass (e.g., €20/month) or also for food (e.g., €12/day for lunch, totaling €240/month)? Worse, the law mentions “lodging.” Must an SME cover the cost of a room for a student who decides to move to the city for the internship?

This undefined cost is a far more powerful disincentive than a fixed cost. An SME can budget for €100 a month, but it cannot budget for a legal obligation to cover “lodging,” a cost that could run into hundreds of euros. This vagueness creates an obvious risk of litigation. A student could sue the company, arguing the compensation offered was insufficient. The SME faces the risk of an inspector or a judge deciding after the fact what the “sufficient” amount should have been.

The rational employer’s reaction, as warned by the Chamber of Commerce and Social Councils, will be to avoid this unpredictable legal and financial risk in the only way possible: by no longer offering internships.

The Reaction from ATA and CEPYME: ‘Regulatory Suffocation’

The business community’s reaction has been unanimously negative. Employer associations (CEOE and CEPYME) and the main freelancer association (ATA) frontally reject the bill. Lorenzo Amor, president of ATA, has harshly criticized the accumulation of burdens, placing this law in a general context of rising costs (minimum wage, contributions) that SMEs perceive as “regulatory suffocation.”

The Spanish Chamber of Commerce, in its formal statement, was blunt: the rule will “disincentivize” companies from offering internships and will increase regulatory and economic costs without justification.

This creates a de facto alliance between business groups and universities (CRUE), both of which oppose the law. However, it is vital to understand they oppose it for diametrically opposed reasons. The business groups do not want to pay the new costs. CRUE, on the other hand, is afraid the business groups won’t pay and that the bill, once again, will fall on the universities. Both actors, from opposite perspectives, reach the same conclusion: the law is financially unviable.

Comparison of Burdens for Host Companies (Pre-2024 vs. Post-Statute 2025)

The following chart summarizes the evolution of obligations and costs for a freelancer or SME hosting an unpaid intern, demonstrating the accumulation of burdens.

Feature	Situation Pre-January 2024	Current Situation (RDL 2/2023)	Proposed Interns’ Statute 2025
S.S. Contributions (Unpaid)	Not mandatory.	Mandatory.	Maintains obligation.
Contribution Cost (Est.)	€0	~€200/year (95% subsidized cost).	Maintains ~€200/year.
Admin. Burden (S.S. Filings)	Low (Agreement only).	High. Quarterly payments.	Maintains High Burden.
Expense Reimbursement	Voluntary.	Voluntary.	Mandatory (Undefined amount).
Student Limits (per Staff)	No (Subject to fraud).	No.	Yes (Max 20% of staff; SME ratios).
Tutoring Limits	No (Informal).	No.	Yes (Max 5 students/tutor).
Sanction Risk	Low (Fraud hard to prove).	Medium.	Extreme (Up to €225,018; presumption of employment).
Actual Funding Source	Company (if voluntary).	University (due to company non-payment).	Open Conflict (SME vs. University).

The Forgotten Stakeholders: The Conflict with the University Community

The greatest strategic error in the Statute’s development has been the exclusion of the university community from its negotiation, a fact that has provoked frontal rejection from the very system that manages the majority of internships in Spain.

The CRUE’s Stance: Support for Rights, Rejection of ‘Improvisation’

The Conference of Rectors of Spanish Universities (CRUE) is, alongside business groups, the most critical actor against the bill. The rectors denounce that the draft bill was negotiated and written without consulting the university community, an incomprehensible omission given that internships are a regulated academic activity.

CRUE’s position is nuanced: they “value positively” and “support” new rights for students, such as expense reimbursement or protections for illness. However, they express “enormous concern” for the “economic viability” of the law. They warn that if the co-responsibility of companies is not guaranteed, the rule will create a strong disincentive that will “compromise the continuity” of the internship model.

The Ministry of Labor made the mistake of negotiating an academic reform as if it were a labor reform (only with unions). CRUE is not opposed to students receiving compensation; it is opposed to the Ministry creating a right without allocating a budget to pay for it. The rectors know from the 2024 experience that this bill will inevitably fall on the universities, and they accuse the government of “improvisation” and of legislating “with its back” to the system’s financial reality.

The Time Bomb: The Cost-Substitution Effect

The key to understanding the Statute’s future is the “time bomb” activated by the 2024 contribution law. As confirmed by CRUE and media analysis, universities are already assuming the €9 million annual cost and the “enormous” administrative burden of these contributions, “without it being their direct responsibility,” in order to “provide peace of mind to their students” and save the academic year.

Universities are trapped in an unsolvable dilemma. Curricular internships are, in many degree programs, mandatory for students to graduate. If companies, facing the new costs of the Statute (contributions + reimbursement), stop offering positions, the university has only two options:

1. Let the system collapse and its students cannot graduate.
2. Pay the costs itself (the contributions, as it already does, and the new reimbursement) to “save” the internship offers and guarantee graduation.

The law creates a perverse incentive for companies. They know that if they refuse to pay, the university (the weaker actor, but the one with the academic obligation) will have to cover the cost to avoid a collapse. The predictable result is that the Statute, designed to end “free labor,” will end up institutionalizing a system where universities (with public money) subsidize training internships in private companies, all while the Ministry of Labor claims a social victory.

The Student View (CREUP): Critical Support

Even the theoretical beneficiaries of the law, the students, maintain a critical stance. The Coordinator of Student Representatives of Public Universities (CREUP) has joined CRUE’s complaints, denouncing that the Ministry ignored the university community during negotiations.

While they support the expansion of rights, CREUP considers “expense reimbursement” to be insufficient. Their demand is for “fair remuneration” that compensates not only for expenses but also for the “opportunity cost” that interning represents for the student. The current law does not satisfy this demand, as it explicitly does not mandate a wage.

The greatest threat to students is the law’s unintended consequence. If the warnings from CRUE and the Social Councils are correct, students will have more rights on paper but fewer internships in reality, hindering their access to the labor market and, in many cases, their ability to graduate.

Political Viability and Expert Conclusions

A Parliamentary Labyrinth: Nil Viability

The Interns’ Statute’s parliamentary journey is expected to be short and unsuccessful. The fact that it was only approved on a “first reading,” and not as a full-fledged bill, already indicates its weakness. It must now pass through months of reports before a “second reading” and subsequent submission to Congress.

The bill faces a triple blockade:

1. Internal Friction: The public “discrepancies” between the governing partners (PSOE and Sumar) cast doubt on the consensus needed to defend the law.
2. Political Opposition: The Popular Party (PP) has already “signaled its rejection” of the measure, considering it doomed to failure.
3. Stakeholder Opposition: It is one of the few laws that has managed to unite employer associations (CEOE/CEPYME) and universities (CRUE) against it.

With this outlook, the law has “little chance of seeing the light of day in Congress.” It is, for all practical purposes, politically dead. Its approval by the Cabinet seems more like a symbolic act by Yolanda Díaz to fulfill her agenda with the unions than a viable legislative initiative. The only way this law could prosper would require an amendment that includes direct state funding (a line item in the General State Budget to cover the reimbursements), something that is not being contemplated.

Expert Diagnosis: A Real Problem, An Incomplete Solution

As an analyst, the Ministry of Labor’s diagnosis (the widespread abuse of the “fake intern”) is correct. The problem is real, it damages the labor market, and it makes young people’s entry into employment precarious.

However, the solution (the Statute) is profoundly flawed because it ignores the economics of incentives. It attempts to impose a significant cost on an activity (offering training internships) that is voluntary for companies. The logical consequence of taxing a voluntary activity is not that companies will pay, but that they will stop participating in the system.

The law confuses a labor problem (fraud, which should be pursued by the Labor Inspectorate) with an academic activity (training). In doing so, it shifts the costs to the weakest link (the university, which is obligated to see its students graduate) and threatens to destroy the very bridge between education and employment that it intended to regulate.

Future Scenarios and Strategic Recommendations for SMEs and Freelancers

Scenario 1 (Most Likely): The Statute Dies in Parliament.

The law is not approved.

• Action for SMEs: This relief is only partial and temporary. The obligation to pay Social Security contributions for interns (RDL 2/2023) remains in effect. The Labor Inspectorate is already intensifying its surveillance of “fake interns” regardless of this new law. SMEs must regularize their 2024 and 2025 contribution payments immediately to avoid penalties.

Scenario 2 (Unlikely): The Statute Passes.

• Action for SMEs: If the law were to pass, SMEs would have to make drastic decisions:
  1. Absorb the full cost: (Contributions + Reimbursement + Tutor’s time). This would only be viable if the intern provides tangible value almost from day one.
  2. Drastically reduce offers: Cancel all extracurricular internships (the most expensive and limited by the law) and keep only the minimum mandatory curricular ones.
  3. Pressure the University: Negotiate with the home university to have it assume the cost of the “expense reimbursement,” replicating the de facto model already in place for Social Security contributions.

Analyst’s Strategic Recommendation:

Regardless of the Statute’s viability, the regulatory trend is clear. Freelancers and SMEs are advised to adopt two immediate defensive measures:

1. Immediate Contribution Audit: Compliance is the best defense. Verify today that you are correctly filing and paying the quarterly subsidized contributions for all interns. This is priority number one.
2. Document the Training: The training plan must be real, detailed, and documented. The intern cannot replace an employee or perform structural tasks. Having a solid training plan and proof of tutoring is the only effective legal defense against a “presumption of employment status” and the ruinous claim for back wages and contributions.