NYC Local Law 144 – Public Enforcement & Compliance Ledger (2023–2026)

A neutral reference document compiling publicly available information regarding NYC Local Law 144 enforcement, compliance requirements, and documented regulatory actions.

Last updated: January 2026 | Document version: 1.0

Disclaimer

This document is provided for educational and informational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon as such.

Readers should consult qualified legal counsel for advice specific to their circumstances. The information contained herein is compiled from publicly available sources and may not reflect the most current regulatory interpretations or enforcement positions.

HAIEC is not a law firm and does not provide legal services.

1. What NYC Local Law 144 Is

Statutory Definition

NYC Local Law 144 of 2021 amended Title 20 of the Administrative Code of the City of New York by adding a new chapter 5, titled "Automated Employment Decision Tools."

"Automated employment decision tool" means any computational process, derived from machine learning, statistical modeling, data analytics, or artificial intelligence, that issues simplified output, including a score, classification, or recommendation, that is used to substantially assist or replace discretionary decision making for making employment decisions that impact natural persons.— NYC Administrative Code § 20-870, as added by Local Law 144 of 2021[Source]

Scope of Application

The law applies to employers and employment agencies that use an automated employment decision tool to screen candidates or employees for an employment decision in New York City.

"Employment decision" means to screen candidates for employment or employees for promotion within the city of New York.— NYC Administrative Code § 20-870[DCWP Guidance]

Regulatory Authority

The NYC Department of Consumer and Worker Protection (DCWP) is the designated enforcement agency for Local Law 144. DCWP promulgated final rules implementing the law, which were published in the City Record on April 6, 2023.

Source: NYC DCWP, "Automated Employment Decision Tools (Local Law 144)"[Link]

2. Enforcement Timeline

DateEventSource
December 11, 2021Local Law 144 enacted by NYC CouncilNYC Council
January 1, 2023Original effective date (enforcement delayed)DCWP
April 6, 2023Final rules published in City RecordNYC Rules
July 5, 2023Enforcement beginsDCWP
July 2023 – December 2023Initial enforcement period; DCWP indicated focus on education and outreachDCWP public statements (no formal citation available)
2024Full enforcement; penalty assessments for violationsEnforcement actions not publicly itemized as of this writing
December 2, 2024NYS Comptroller releases audit of DCWP enforcement activity (July 2023 – June 2025)Audit Report 2024-N-6

3. Publicly Documented Enforcement Actions

As of January 2026, DCWP has not published a public database or itemized list of enforcement actions taken under Local Law 144. The following information is compiled from publicly available sources including press releases, news reports, and FOIL (Freedom of Information Law) responses.

Enforcement Activity Overview (July 2023 – June 2025)

According to a December 2024 audit by the New York State Comptroller's Office, DCWP's enforcement activity during the first two years of Local Law 144 enforcement included:

  • Complaints Received: 2 AEDT-related complaints (July 2023 – June 2025)
  • Proactive Reviews: 32 company websites and bias audits surveyed
  • Non-Compliance Identified by DCWP: 1 instance
  • Potential Non-Compliance Identified by Auditors: 17 instances among the same 32 companies
DCWP officials stated that stakeholder education combined with complaint-based enforcement is the most effective way to enforce compliance with LL144.— New York State Comptroller, Audit Report 2024-N-6[Full Report]

Data Limitations: The audit did not disclose the identities of companies reviewed, specific penalties assessed, or details of individual enforcement actions. DCWP has not publicly released an itemized enforcement action database.

The absence of publicly documented enforcement actions does not indicate absence of enforcement activity. DCWP may have issued warning letters, conducted investigations, or reached settlements that have not been publicly disclosed.

Data Availability Notice

Unlike some regulatory bodies (e.g., EEOC, SEC), DCWP does not maintain a publicly searchable enforcement action database for Local Law 144. Individual enforcement actions may be disclosed through:

  • DCWP press releases
  • Court filings (if contested)
  • FOIL requests
  • Voluntary disclosure by affected parties

Documented Actions

DateEntityViolation TypePenaltySource
No individual enforcement actions have been publicly disclosed by DCWP as of January 2026. This table will be updated as information becomes available through official channels.

4. Observed Compliance Failure Patterns

The following patterns are derived from: (a) DCWP guidance documents and FAQs, (b) industry surveys and reports, (c) legal commentary, and (d) publicly reported compliance challenges. These are not derived from specific enforcement actions, as such data is not publicly available.

Pattern 1: Misidentification of Covered Tools

Organizations have reported difficulty determining whether specific tools meet the statutory definition of "automated employment decision tool." Common areas of uncertainty include:

  • Applicant tracking systems (ATS) with ranking or scoring features
  • Video interview platforms with AI analysis components
  • Skills assessment tools with algorithmic scoring
  • Vendor-provided tools where the algorithmic component is not transparent

Source: DCWP FAQ responses; industry legal commentary

Pattern 2: Reliance on Vendor Attestations

DCWP guidance clarifies that the employer or employment agency—not the vendor—bears compliance responsibility. Organizations have reported assuming vendor compliance documentation satisfies their own obligations.

The employer or employment agency that uses the AEDT is responsible for ensuring compliance with Local Law 144, regardless of whether the AEDT is provided by a vendor.— DCWP FAQ (paraphrased from guidance)[Source]

Pattern 3: Inadequate Notice Timing

The law requires notice to candidates at least 10 business days before use of an AEDT. Reported challenges include:

  • Notice provided at time of application (insufficient lead time)
  • Notice buried in lengthy terms and conditions
  • Notice not provided for internal promotion decisions

Pattern 4: Bias Audit Scope Limitations

Organizations have reported challenges ensuring bias audits meet regulatory expectations:

  • Audits conducted on vendor's general system rather than employer's specific use case
  • Insufficient historical data to calculate required impact ratios
  • Auditor independence questions (financial relationships with vendor)

5. Compliance Requirements

Requirement 1: Bias Audit

Regulatory Language:

"No employer or employment agency shall use an AEDT to screen a candidate or employee for an employment decision unless such tool has been the subject of a bias audit conducted no more than one year prior to the use of such tool."

— NYC Administrative Code § 20-871(a)

Plain-English Interpretation: Before using any covered AI hiring tool, the employer must have an independent auditor test the tool for discriminatory impact based on race/ethnicity and sex. This audit must be conducted within the past 12 months.

Typical Failure Points:

  • Using vendor's audit instead of commissioning independent audit
  • Audit older than 12 months at time of AEDT use
  • Audit conducted on different version of the tool than currently deployed
  • Auditor has financial relationship with employer or vendor

Requirement 2: Public Summary

Regulatory Language:

"Any employer or employment agency that uses an AEDT to screen a candidate or employee for an employment decision shall make the following publicly available on the careers or jobs section of their website... a summary of the results of the most recent bias audit."

— NYC Administrative Code § 20-871(b)(1)

Plain-English Interpretation: Employers must publish a summary of their bias audit results on their careers page. This must include the date of audit, the selection rates and impact ratios for each category tested, and the distribution of candidates across categories.

Typical Failure Points:

  • Summary not posted on careers page (posted elsewhere or not at all)
  • Summary requires login to access
  • Summary does not include required statistical information
  • Summary not updated after new audit conducted

Requirement 3: Candidate Notice

Regulatory Language:

"Any employer or employment agency in the city that uses an AEDT to screen a candidate or employee for an employment decision shall notify each such candidate or employee... no less than ten business days before such use."

— NYC Administrative Code § 20-871(b)(2)

Plain-English Interpretation: Candidates must be told that an AI tool will be used to evaluate them at least 10 business days before the tool is actually used. The notice must describe the job qualifications and characteristics the tool will assess.

Typical Failure Points:

  • Notice provided fewer than 10 business days before AEDT use
  • Notice does not specify what the AEDT evaluates
  • Notice not provided for promotion decisions (only hiring)
  • No process for candidates to request alternative evaluation

6. Audit Expectations

What Regulators Check

Based on DCWP guidance and the final rules, regulatory review is expected to examine:

  • Existence of a bias audit conducted within the required timeframe
  • Independence of the auditor (no disqualifying financial relationships)
  • Completeness of the audit (all required categories tested)
  • Public availability of the summary on the careers page
  • Evidence of candidate notice (timing and content)
  • Documentation of alternative evaluation process for candidates who request it

Expected Documentation

Organizations should maintain records demonstrating:

  • Full bias audit report (not just summary)
  • Auditor engagement letter and independence attestation
  • Date audit was completed and date AEDT was first used after audit
  • Screenshot or archive of published summary on careers page
  • Template and delivery records for candidate notices
  • Records of any alternative evaluation requests and how they were handled

What Is Not Sufficient

Based on DCWP guidance, the following do not satisfy compliance requirements:

InsufficientRequired Instead
Vendor's own bias auditIndependent audit commissioned by employer
Vendor attestation of complianceEmployer's own compliance documentation
Notice at time of applicationNotice 10+ business days before AEDT use
Summary behind login wallPublicly accessible summary (no login)
Audit of vendor's general systemAudit of employer's specific deployment

7. Penalty Structure

Local Law 144 establishes civil penalties for violations, enforceable by DCWP.

Regulatory Language:

"Any person that violates any provision of this chapter or any rule promulgated thereunder shall be subject to a civil penalty of not more than $500 for a first violation and each additional violation occurring on the same day as the first violation, and not less than $500 nor more than $1,500 for each subsequent violation."

— NYC Administrative Code § 20-872

Penalty Calculation

Violation TypeFirst ViolationSubsequent Violations
Per violation per dayUp to $500$500 – $1,500

Each day of non-compliance may constitute a separate violation. Multiple violation types (e.g., missing audit, missing notice, missing publication) may each be assessed separately.

Note: Actual penalty assessments in specific cases have not been publicly disclosed by DCWP as of this writing.

8. Primary Sources