NYC LL 144
NYC Local Law 144 (Automated Employment Decision Tools)
First-in-world law mandating bias audits for AI hiring tools. Requires annual independent audits and public disclosure of results.
Jurisdiction
New York City
Enacted
Pending
Effective
Jul 5, 2023
Enforcement
NYC Department of Consumer and Worker Protection
Why It Matters
Narrow scope but actual 'audit-or-don't-use' enforcement model. Demonstrates difficulty of compliance even with simple requirements.
Recent Developments
FAccT 2024 academic study (June 2024) found only 18 of 391 surveyed employers posted audit reports. Dec 2025 NYS Comptroller audit surveyed 32 companies. Compliance gap remains significant.
At a Glance
Applies to
Harms addressed
Requires
Who Must Comply
- Employers and employment agencies using automated employment decision tools in NYC
Obligations fall on:
Safety Provisions
- Annual independent bias audit calculating impact ratios for race/ethnicity and sex
- Public disclosure of audit results on employer website
- Candidate notice at least 10 business days before AEDT use
- Alternative selection process option must be disclosed
Compliance & Enforcement
Penalties
$2K/violation
Private Right of Action
Individuals can sue directly without waiting for regulatory action.
View on map
New York City
Focus Areas
Cite This
APA
New York City. (2023). NYC Local Law 144 (Automated Employment Decision Tools).
Related Regulations
IL AI Employment Law
Amends Illinois Human Rights Act to make it a civil rights violation for employers to use AI that discriminates based on protected classes in employment decisions. Requires notice to employees and applicants when AI is used in hiring, firing, promotion, or discipline.
IL AIVIA
Requires notice, consent, and transparency for AI analysis of video job interviews. Early state-level AI employment regulation.
MN AI Disclosure Act
Requires businesses to disclose when individuals communicate with AI in textual or spoken conversations. Prohibits deception about AI vs. human interaction. Provides private right of action with damages up to $1,000 plus attorney fees. AG can impose civil penalties up to $5 million.
CA SB 947
Adds Labor Code Part 5.5.5 on employers' use of automated decision systems (ADS). Bars using an ADS to violate labor or civil rights law, to infer an employee's protected status, or to predict and act against workers exercising legal rights; bars relying solely on an ADS for disciplinary or termination decisions and requires human corroboration where an ADS output is the primary basis; and requires a written post-use notice and, on request, a description of the employee's data used. Operative July 1, 2027.
CA AB 2246
Repeals and replaces the California Age-Appropriate Design Code Act. Requires a business providing an online service, product or feature likely to be accessed by children to estimate the age of child users with a reasonable level of certainty or extend child protections to all users, to configure high-privacy defaults, and to take reasonable steps to prevent specified harms including severe psychological harm. Removes the exceptions to the data-collection prohibitions, lets children void contracts entered through manipulative design features, and states that it creates no private right of action.
CA SB 503
Requires developers and deployers of AI clinical decision support systems used by health facilities, clinics and physician practices to make reasonable efforts to identify systems with a known or reasonably foreseeable risk of biased impacts on people with protected characteristics. Developers must mitigate those risks and give deployers an intended-use and risk statement plus documentation on training data, evaluation and data governance; deployers must regularly monitor the systems and mitigate.
Last updated January 22, 2026. Verify against primary sources before relying on this information.