By Nicole
Foster, Director of Legal Affairs at Travel Industry Solutions.
Hardly a
week goes by that we don't see travel advisors and host agencies asking about independent contractor agreements—what should be in them,
what's enforceable, and whether the one sitting in front of them is actually
any good. It's one of the most common points of confusion in the industry, and
honestly, it's easy to see why. The IC relationship
is the backbone of how most host agencies and travel advisors work together, but the
rules that govern it aren't always intuitive, and
a poorly written agreement can create real problems down the road.
Whether you're a host agency putting together an
agreement or an advisor about to sign one, here's what you should understand before you do.
IC vs.
Employee: The Basic Distinction
At its
core, the difference between an employee and an independent
contractor comes down to control. An employee works under the direction of an
employer who sets the hours, the methods, and the tools. An independent
contractor is a self-employed professional who maintains control over how they conduct their work, rather than
operating under the direction and control of the engaging party.
In the travel industry, this matters because most host
agency relationships are built on the IC model, which means both parties have
rights and responsibilities that differ significantly from those in a
traditional employment arrangement. That said, the line between the two isn't
always black-and-white. The IRS and the Department of Labor consider multiple
factors when evaluating a working relationship, not just control alone. If
there's any uncertainty about how a particular arrangement would be classified,
that's a conversation worth having
with an employment attorney.
Why the
Agreement Matters So Much
An IC agreement isn't just a formality. It sets
expectations for the entire working relationship and gives both parties
something to refer back to when
questions arise. Vague or incomplete agreements
tend to create friction around commissions, client ownership,
and what happens when someone decides to move on—exactly the situations where clarity
matters most.
The agreement also helps demonstrate that the
relationship is genuinely one between two independent parties, which matters
for classification purposes. Regulators look at the substance of how people actually work together—but a well-written agreement that reflects that reality
is an important part of the picture.
What a
Solid IC Agreement Should Cover
A few
areas keep coming up as sources of
confusion or conflict when they aren't addressed clearly up front.
Scope of the
relationship. The agreement should spell
out what the advisor is engaged to do and,
importantly, that they have control over their own methods and schedule. The distinction between directing someone's work and
simply defining the outcome is exactly where classification
questions tend to start.
Commission
and payment terms. How and when commissions are
paid, what the split looks like, whether there are any deductions or fees, and
how supplier payments flow through the host agency should all be clearly laid
out. Ambiguity here tends to cause the most friction in practice.
Outside business activity. Can the advisor work with other host agencies or book
outside the relationship? This is an area where host agencies
sometimes get into trouble. Requiring true
exclusivity is legally inconsistent with IC status—exclusivity is a hallmark of
employment, not independent contracting. Under the IRS common-law test and the
DOL's economic-reality test, a worker who is prohibited from working for others looks far more like an employee than a
contractor. Agencies that impose exclusivity while classifying the advisor as
an IC face real misclassification exposure. The agreement can address outside business activities, but any restriction in this area warrants careful review by
an employment attorney before it's included.
Non-compete and non-solicitation clauses. These are common in IC agreements but mean
very different things and carry very different legal weight. A true non-compete
— one that prevents an advisor from working in the travel industry altogether
after the relationship ends — may be extremely difficult to enforce against an
independent contractor and, in many states, outright unenforceable. The FTC's
2024 rule targeting most non-compete agreements has further shifted the
landscape, though it remains subject to ongoing litigation. Non-solicitation
clauses are a different matter. Restrictions on marketing to or soliciting the
host agency's clients, independent advisors, or employees are generally more
defensible and more appropriate in an IC relationship, though enforceability
still varies by state. Both parties benefit from understanding exactly which
type of restriction they're agreeing to — and getting current legal guidance
before signing.
Intellectual
property and client ownership. Who owns
the client relationships built during the engagement? Who retains access to
client data if the relationship ends? These questions come up more often than
people expect, and they're much easier to resolve when the agreement addresses
them from the start.
Termination. A good agreement covers how either party can end the
relationship, the notice required and what happens to pending bookings and
commissions after the relationship wraps up. Without this, an otherwise clean
ending can quickly get messy.
The
Day-to-Day Reality Matters Just as Much
Even the most thorough agreement can't do all the work
on its own. How the relationship actually operates day to day matters just as much as what's on paper—and this is where a lot of IC arrangements quietly drift
into legally risky territory.
On the behavioral side, a true IC relationship means
the advisor controls how they do their work. A
host agency can set expectations around outcomes and
brand standards, but dictating work hours, requiring specific processes for
every task, or mandating attendance at non-optional internal meetings starts to
look more like employment than contracting. The same caution applies to supplier
usage—while agencies can communicate preferences, structuring supplier mandates
in a way that removes advisor discretion can also be read as behavioral control.
On the financial side, genuine ICs typically have their
own business expenses, can work with multiple clients, and bear some level of
financial risk. When an advisor is entirely
dependent on one host agency for all their income, and the agency controls all
the tools they use, that is an affirmative indicator of employment under both the IRS and DOL
frameworks—not just a yellow flag, but a factor that weighs meaningfully toward
reclassification. That's a situation worth addressing with an attorney sooner
rather than later.
The
Trade-Offs Are Real on Both Sides
For host agencies, the IC model keeps things lean. No payroll taxes to withhold, no mandatory benefits, and
the flexibility to work with advisors across different markets and specialties.
The trade-off is less direct control over how advisors operate—and investing in someone's development without any
assurance they'll stay is a real consideration.
For advisors, the appeal is freedom. You run your own
business, set your own pace, and often keep a larger share of your commissions. The flip side is that you're responsible for your own
taxes, your own benefits, and building your own safety net. There's no paid
time off, no employer-sponsored health insurance, and no unemployment cushion if the relationship ends.
Getting
It Right from the Start
The IC relationship can be genuinely great for both
sides when it's set up thoughtfully. That means taking the agreement seriously,
making sure it reflects how the relationship will actually work, and revisiting
it periodically to ensure the day-to-day
reality still aligns with what's on paper.
Given how
much state law varies on classification, non-competes, and related issues,
having an employment attorney review any agreement before it's signed is time
well spent—for both parties.
Disclaimer:
This commentary is provided for your information only—it is not legal advice,
it is not a substitute for legal advice, and it does not create attorney-client
privilege. If you seek legal advice, please consult with a qualified attorney.
You are responsible for using the information appropriately, and neither Travel
Industry Solutions nor Travel Pulse is responsible for your use of it.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Nicole Foster is the Director of Legal
Affairs at Travel Industry Solutions, where she helps travel advisors and
agencies operate with clarity, compliance, and confidence. She is a licensed
lawyer in Ontario and brings a client-first legal perspective shaped by her
background in private legal practice. Having grown up in the travel industry,
Nicole offers a unique dual perspective that blends legal rigor with an
insider’s understanding of how travel businesses operate day to day. She
focuses on translating legal requirements into practical, plain-English
solutions—streamlining contracts, strengthening documentation, and improving
processes so advisors can spend less time managing risk and more time serving
travelers. For more information on Travel Industry
Solutions, visit www.travelindustrysolutions.com, email
[email protected], or follow us on social media: Facebook,
Instagram, LinkedIn, or YouTube.
For the latest travel news, updates and deals, subscribe to the daily TravelPulse newsletter.
Topics From This Article to Explore
