evidoria

← Back to browse

Good practice Imported

New York City's Local Law 144 — Mandatory Bias-Audit Disclosure for Automated Hiring Tools, and Its Enforcement Gap

United States of America · New York City · See the United States of America profile · See the New York City profile

Evidence: Observational / pre–post Top 51% 60/100 · Ask Evidence Copilot about this practice

NYC's Local Law 144 requires employers to publicly post independent bias audits before using AI tools to screen job candidates. A 2025 NY State Comptroller audit found DCWP fielded only 2 complaints and missed 17 of 18 non-compliance cases it should have caught.

2 complaints
AEDT complaints received by DCWP (Jul 2023–Jun 2025)
32 companies
Companies reviewed by DCWP
1 instance
Non-compliance instances identified by DCWP
17 instances (at least)
Non-compliance instances found by the Comptroller's own review (same 32 companies)
391 employers
Employers checked in the academic study
18 employers
Employers posting the required bias-audit summary
13 employers
Employers posting the required candidate notice
New York City's Local Law 144 — Mandatory Bias-Audit Disclosure for Automated Hiring Tools, and Its Enforcement Gap

Details

Maturity
Established
Promoter
NYC Department of Consumer and Worker Protection (DCWP)
Period
2023–present
Keywords
employment, algorithmic transparency, compliance & enforcement, hiring technology

Context

Local Law 144 requires any employer using an 'automated employment decision tool' (AEDT) — software that substantially assists or replaces human judgement in hiring or promotion decisions — on New York City-based candidates to commission an independent bias audit and publicly post a summary of the results, alongside a notice to candidates. The law was enacted in 2021, took effect on 1 January 2023, and enforcement by DCWP began on 5 July 2023.

Objectives

The law's aim is to make the use of automated hiring tools more transparent and accountable through mandatory independent audits and public disclosure.

Activities

Enforcement is carried out by the NYC Department of Consumer and Worker Protection (DCWP), which reviews complaints and employer compliance with the audit-posting and candidate-notice requirements.

Results

An audit by the New York State Comptroller, published 2 December 2025 and covering July 2023 to June 2025, found DCWP received only two AEDT complaints in the entire period, reviewed the websites and bias audits of 32 companies, and identified just one instance of non-compliance — while the Comptroller's own review of the same 32 companies found at least 17 instances of potential non-compliance. The audit attributed the gap to DCWP not investigating whether its own complaint intake process worked and not applying the formal review procedures its own office had created. A separate academic study that checked 391 employers found only 18 had posted a bias-audit summary and 13 had posted the required candidate notice.

Conclusions

Local Law 144 remains the first binding public-disclosure regime of its kind for AI hiring tools, and its design — mandatory independent audits plus public posting — has influenced later proposals elsewhere. But the Comptroller's and academics' findings make it a documented cautionary case: passing a transparency law does not by itself produce transparency without matching enforcement capacity.

Implementation

Indicative cost
Medium (€50k–€500k) — No specific enforcement budget disclosed; DCWP operates as an existing city regulatory agency — conservative medium estimate for citywide compliance-monitoring operation.
Time to results
Medium (1–3 years) — Enacted 2021, effective January 2023, enforcement ongoing since July 2023 — a multi-year, not yet decade-scale, regulatory programme.
Staffing & skills
NYC Department of Consumer and Worker Protection (DCWP) — enforcement agency, Independent bias auditors (retained by employers), New York State Comptroller's office (oversight audit)

Conditions for success

  • Employers commissioning genuine independent bias audits
  • DCWP proactively investigating complaint intake and applying its own review procedures
  • Adequate enforcement capacity scaled to the number of covered employers

Common failure modes

  • DCWP received only 2 complaints in two years and caught only 1 of at least 18 non-compliance cases the Comptroller identified
  • DCWP did not investigate whether its own complaint intake process worked
  • DCWP did not apply the formal review procedures its own office created
  • Academic study found only 18 of 391 checked employers posted the required bias-audit summary

Do you run this practice? Claim it — verified implementers get a public contact pathway and can propose corrections.

Data sources

Where this practice's information was retrieved from, and when.

Attachments

Similar practices you may find useful