AI laws governing employment and human‑resources practices in the United States are rapidly evolving, and three statutes stand out as foundational: the Illinois AI Video Interview Act, New York City Local Law 144, and Maryland HB 1202. Together, they form the core of a growing regulatory framework that governs how employers may use automated employment decision tools (AEDTs) such as résumé screeners, video‑interview analyzers, and algorithmic scoring systems.
These laws share a common purpose: ensuring transparency, fairness, and bias mitigation when AI is used to evaluate job candidates or employees. They differ, however, in scope, obligations, and enforcement mechanisms.
Illinois – AI Video Interview Act
Illinois was the first state to enact a law specifically regulating AI in hiring. The AI Video Interview Act, effective January 1, 2020, governs employers who use AI to analyze video interviews.
Key requirements
- Notice: Employers must notify applicants that AI will be used to evaluate their video interview.
- Explanation: Employers must explain how the AI works and what characteristics it uses to assess applicants.
- Consent: Applicants must provide affirmative consent before the AI is used.
- Data rights: Applicants may request deletion of their video interview, and employers must comply within 30 days.
- Limitations on sharing: Employers may not share videos except with persons whose expertise is necessary to evaluate the applicant.
Why it matters
Illinois created the first statutory model for AI transparency and applicant rights, and it remains one of the strongest candidate‑control frameworks in the country.
New York City – Local Law 144 (Automated Employment Decision Tools Law)
NYC’s Local Law 144, effective July 2023, is the most comprehensive AI‑in‑employment law in the United States. It regulates any automated employment decision tool (AEDT) used to screen candidates or employees.
Core obligations
- Annual bias audits: Employers must conduct an independent bias audit of each AEDT within one year prior to use.
- Public disclosure: Summary results of the bias audit must be publicly posted.
- Advance notice: NYC candidates must receive at least 10 business days’ notice before an AEDT is used to evaluate them.
- Transparency: Employers must disclose the job qualifications and characteristics the AEDT will assess.
- Vendor accountability: Employers remain responsible for discriminatory outcomes even when using third‑party tools.
Why it matters
Local Law 144 is the first law to require bias audits, making it a national model for algorithmic fairness in hiring.
Maryland – HB 1202 (Automated Employment Decision Tools Act)
Maryland’s HB 1202 is part of the same wave of AI‑employment regulation highlighted in multi‑state analyses. It follows the NYC model by imposing notice, consent, and documentation requirements for employers using AEDTs.
Key features
- Notice and consent: Employers must notify applicants when AI or algorithmic tools are used and obtain consent.
- Documentation: Employers must maintain records of AEDT use, including data sources and evaluation criteria.
- Bias‑mitigation expectations: While not as prescriptive as NYC’s law, Maryland requires employers to ensure that AI tools do not result in discriminatory outcomes.
- Alignment with national trends: Maryland’s law is frequently cited alongside NYC and Illinois as part of the emerging regulatory baseline.
Why it matters
Maryland’s statute expands AI‑employment regulation beyond major urban centers and signals that state‑level adoption is accelerating.
Cross‑state themes shaping AI‑employment regulation
Across these laws, several regulatory patterns are emerging:
- Transparency — Applicants must be told when AI is used and how it works.
- Consent — Many states require affirmative applicant consent before AI evaluation.
- Bias auditing — NYC leads with mandatory audits; other states are moving in this direction.
- Data rights — Illinois pioneered deletion rights for AI‑evaluated video interviews.
- Employer accountability — Employers remain responsible for discriminatory outcomes, even when using third‑party vendors.
- Documentation and governance — States increasingly expect employers to maintain records of AEDT use and risk‑mitigation measures.
How these laws fit into the national landscape
Legal commentary notes that AI‑employment regulation is expanding quickly, with more states preparing to adopt AEDT‑style laws. Employers using résumé screeners, video‑interview analyzers, or algorithmic scoring tools must now design compliance programs that work across multiple jurisdictions.