Technology is changing the methods used by entrepreneurs to manage their human resources. Many employers have already started to dismiss the completely human exercise of their managerial prerogatives, totally or partially delegating them to more or less smart machines. Data collected through workforce analytics practices are the fuel to fill the tank of algorithmic management tools, which are capable of taking automated decisions affecting the workforce. Notwithstanding the advantages in terms of increased labour productivity, recurring to technology is not always risk-free. It has already happened, also in the HR management context, that algorithms have revealed themselves as biased decision-makers. This problem has often been exacerbated by the lack of transparency characterising most part of automated decision-making processes. This is also the reason why it has been underlined how workforce analytics and algorithmic management practices may implicate an augmentation of managerial prerogatives unheard in the past. It has also been stressed, above all when looking at the international debate on this topic, that this should entail an update of, or even implicate the need of rethinking more generally, employment laws that, as they are today, may be inadequate to address the issues posed by the technological revolution. The aim of this paper is thus to understand whether Italian employment laws are equipped with regulatory antibodies capable of preventing improper abuses of employers’ managerial prerogatives potentially arising from the increasing recourse to algorithmic management practices. More specifically, this article tries to demonstrate how the rules relating to burden of proof and the ones granting employment judges with broad powers to obtain evidence, above all if combined with information and access rights provided by the GDPR, can alleviate the issues of both lack of decision-making transparency and improper abuses of employers’ managerial prerogatives connected to the always more massive use of algorithmic management practices. Lastly, this paper points out how there are many arguments to claim for a more robust exercise of the powers of employment judges to obtain evidence, driven and at the same time limited by the criterion of the proximity to the source of evidence. This would facilitate the quest for the material truth hidden behind the algorithm, thus making Italian employment laws even better equipped to face the challenges posed by the technological revolution.